IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pals] Feedback request for draft-schmutzer-pals-ple

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 23 February 2022 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E093D3A0E7A; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 06:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pp8YiwCU2n3z; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 06:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93B503A0EF4; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 06:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id h125so20093472pgc.3; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 06:31:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hUik3BNG6cl4KwtbxV+ez9+WQtNy0GjyXbjkFGjXVGk=; b=dPneBt4yrJExUNVQ/El9r8X8TRtB16Yam8h7TYwCZWovtb7b2z3v2kegT15zAAyxyF 13wnPZ0GuUrOjVu162OzdD/80qm0Ce2VjQboMPFPQ3wHB343I5g3MVlkRV9Oh3p6LlJq N8TLYQJOFYFx4UMMFl5dRbdBMzNgdIhdyDKLtcUI0yfwE96ldXrpsnTyhBaI2hWt14Se pQd3EjjOs6CGMXUv/+VbcWjAtz1qeq1H6xhFBpfnS5963JTBIv8Nl55y58nMNHDC4+dA Cj5dopKBe3H3wbfDsfLAfkRXaqBbc9mJTXIY5dBgpRFQc2LMW+sTBwG2InU4CSTPfQfF RFCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hUik3BNG6cl4KwtbxV+ez9+WQtNy0GjyXbjkFGjXVGk=; b=BqTY/xb05F8CMqC/T5zIDtJdGxioX7QA1M9MMiHI29Dn6ABHVxLqqU5MZW+0jVwXea UNdO1CRVAj64y3s2BcqPE/uXjAcxL2NUKj07Bt3L1QCLdi7jELib8OMMoaXiQwdY3MGf WMHFBJ7rnVRjjVhFXQ0mYl3b6ZqwpDs6xYkWMhiPyxfapZQcGfzrxsHn5VMH3Vq9wpwo 1v0ezFGo4i9VsnRoUrK3ucpwaAYHcCnu2BIVNbm6MKXhT5oCHJx1yqgOCAvqG1S5RO/6 0IzNmcJMX3C4EYl95sH3IKHkXqU191jrEDSN3gGds1dAmuEbUvqWQzTCBPVAeT9lxFye TLSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tb49lhLLjeENAktwJVEtotB6/GAvFlOhCQTf9gU+NLpxBDsS/ lWYtYuNnEr96oA9KrvVAVbEV1nuR6NUXWCmBnxPo+fwtl8ofaQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqHFdxIzJB0aBbRnLdFhewSZefDMbF+GuT3lLQjiqLHqETmkTmfE0ochJeoi6m2m51nyjfgKo8J0BKK0ZTK/g=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:571d:0:b0:372:8da2:10e1 with SMTP id l29-20020a63571d000000b003728da210e1mr23810375pgb.271.1645626664434; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 06:31:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <99CF5F51-B32D-42CE-98A2-72E1CDA99478@cisco.com> <CAA=duU1F1zwGf2dggK7+UjEr=xkNK-t1WPaHN--TKZ4hxFMYkA@mail.gmail.com> <D06BB456-C36A-4536-9032-BB9A8925FBE9@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D06BB456-C36A-4536-9032-BB9A8925FBE9@cisco.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:30:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1d+uJ8mpTTN7wvczXqg_2i3i0EkYXprmmoTaS2Rwnk7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz)" <cschmutz@cisco.com>
Cc: "Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz)" <cschmutz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>, "draft-schmutzer-pals-ple@ietf.org" <draft-schmutzer-pals-ple@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4458505d8b05055"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/1MOX2By-P1R--TuiE2J8ZlBE4S8>
Subject: Re: [Pals] Feedback request for draft-schmutzer-pals-ple
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:31:10 -0000

Christian,

Yes, absolutely, and also include, if you can, scenarios or examples where
PLE would be preferred. These are questions that would otherwise come up
during the review process prior to publication.

Thanks,
Andy


On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:13 AM Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <
cschmutz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> Many thanks for having a look at our draft.
>
> PLE is very similar to RFC4553 (SAToP) where any multiplexing structure of
> the carried bit-stream is ignored. However RFC4553 was only defined for
> E1/T1/E3/T3 PDH interfaces and hence we started this new draft to widen the
> scope of bit-streams that can be carried.
>
> In contrast RFC4842 (CEP) and RFC5086 (CESoPSN) are aware of the SONET/SDH
> or NxDS0 multiplexing structure, terminate it and the pseudowire is used to
> carry virtual containers or channels.
>
> We already pointed to RFC4553 in the introduction section of our draft to
> highlight the similarity.
>
> If it helps the clarity of the draft we can also expand there on how other
> RFCs such as RFC4842 and RFC5086 are different?
>
> Regards
> Christian
>
> On 22.02.2022, at 16:56, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Christian,
>
> Thanks for the note and aiming the draft at PALS. I've also added your
> co-authors to this reply, in case any of them aren't (yet) subscribed to
> the PALS list.
>
> To start the discussion, when I looked through the draft I didn't see any
> references to RFC 4842, which is more than a bit of an omission. The draft
> very much needs a general applicability discussion comparing this draft to
> existing PALS and PWE3 RFCs in your solution space and when this draft
> should be used rather than existing mechanisms.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:50 AM Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschmutz=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear PALS community,
>>
>> The authors of
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple have
>> added a new section (5.3) to cover the data plane aspects for 200GE and
>> 400GE.
>>
>> Based on the input received in the past we also now renamed this
>> individual draft to be directed towards the PALS WG.
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple
>>
>> We would appreciate your review and feedback
>>
>> regards
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pals mailing list
>> Pals@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email