Re: [OSPF] [Teas] draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08 and draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-01

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

Correct, I didn't mean to change the agreement, just didn't get correctly what Julien was proposing...i understood he was asking for LMP extensions.

Cheers
Daniele

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 9 febbraio 2017 18:12
To: Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08 and draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-01

Hi Julien, Daniele,

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Julien Meuric <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Organization: Orange
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "TEAS WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08 and draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-01

Ciao again.

Actually, I was thinking about allocating codepoints both for the IGPs and for LMP (e.g. DATA-LINK sub-object) using this I-D. Do you think the CCAMP chairs/WG would be more offended with that idea than OSPF/ISIS WGs?

For the GMPLS OSPF-TE media-specific extensions (e.g., optical), the OSPF WG has allowed the CCAMP drafts to allocate the OSPF-TE TLV code points. We started having them presented in both WGs but there proved to be neither the WG time nor the interest to follow them in OSPF.

More generally applicable OSPF-TE extensions should be taken to the OSPF WG.

Thanks,
Acee





Cheers,

Julien

Feb. 09, 2017 - [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>:
Hi Julien,

Thanks a lot for the review.

I'd say OK to all.

-          OK with removing the term routing from the title

-          OK to allocate a codepoint as a DATA LINK subject in LMP (are you volunteering to write a draft in CCAMP?) :)

-          OK for the nits, will fix them.
Thanks
Daniele

From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 9 febbraio 2017 15:35


Hi Daniele,

I am fine with the proposed split: I do not see much drawback in defining 2 categories in a 16-bit space.

The I-D is clear enough to be moved to LC. Just a few minor comments:
- In the title, the term "routing" makes parsing quite hard: why not just "Generalized ISCD SCSI"?
- Since we are considering a generic TLV, what would you think about allocating a codepoint as a DATA-LINK subject in LMP (besides the IGPs)?
- Nits:
  * Along the document, capital letters and hyphens on "Switching Capability-Specific Information" must be made consistent.
  * s/technology specific formats/technology-specific formats/
  * s/ISIS/IS-IS/
  * s/technology specific information/technology-specific information/
  * s/a SCSI-TLV/an SCSI-TLV/
  * s/these SCSI-TLV/these SCSI-TLVs/
  * s/technology specific formats/technology-specific formats/
  * s/definition on the type/definition of the type/

Regards,

Julien


Feb. 08, 2017 - [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>:
Hi Pavan,

That's correct.
Actually there was the proposal to split the value range into two ranges, one for specific technologies and one for others. There is no major concern about this split proposal hence I assume it is safe to assume we can keep it.

Thanks
Daniele

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 20:09



Daniele, Hi!
At the last IETF, you were trying to seek opinion on the semantics of the value field in the SCSI TLV. You had it listed as an Open-Item in your presentation
(Slide 5 - https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-teas-draft-ceccarelli-teas-gneralized-scsi-00.pptx). Is it safe to assume that this closed now (no changes to the original proposal)?
WG,
Please do review the current version (-01) of the draft and reach out to the authors if there are any questions/concerns. We would like to take this to LC soon.
Regards,
- Pavan

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear WG, chairs,

the CCAMP document in object (draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extesions-08) is ready and waiting for the progressing of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-01.
Could  you please review the TEAS document so to help moving the CCAMP ID along?

Many thanks
Daniele

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas






_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas