Re: [Teas] 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

How about we just get rid of the ranges? i.e.,

OLD


       Value       SCSI-TLV                   SwitchCap   Reference
       ---------   -------------------------- ---------   ---------
       0           Reserved                               [This ID]
-       1-32768     Unassigned, for use by    [per value]
-                   specific technology                    [This ID]
-       32768-65535 Unassigned, for others    (Any, or
-                                              value list) [This ID]

   New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value or
   values to be used in the SwitchCap column.

NEW

       Value       SCSI-TLV                  SwitchCap    Reference
       ---------   ------------------------- ---------    ---------
       0           Reserved                               [This ID]
+      1-65535     Unassigned                (value list) [This ID]


   New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value or
   values to be used in the SwitchCap column.

Lou

On 3/12/2017 11:34 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian and Daniele,
>
>  
>
> Interesting.
>
>  
>
> I understood the purpose of split ranges is allowing technology
> specific ones go for the first range "1-32768", and generalized ones
> go for the second range "32768-65535".
>
>  
>
> But, the issue raised by Adrian is coming, i.e., one by one technology
> specific ones go for the first range, and people realize later on that
> they should be generalized by using the second range.
>
>  
>
> In addition, "'Any', or list of multiple technologies" is a little
> confusing, since "Any" includes technology specific.
>
>  
>
> So, should it explicitly say that technology agnostic( or generic
> ones) go for the second range?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> > > I think Section 6 could be clearer...
>
> >> 
>
> > > But, I don't think this is going to work!
>
> > > Suppose I define a new TLV for the foo-switch technology. Obviously
>
> > > it comes from the 1-32768 range.
>
> > > But the next day someone dreams up the foo-prime (commonly known as
>
> > > bar) technology and wants to use the same TLV.
>
> > > Can't do it.
>
> > 
>
> > I don't get this either (and It's only Thursday...). Foo would get
>
> > value 1 allocated and bar value 2 if they are both specific
>
> > technologies, otherwise Foo would get value 1 allocated and Bar would get 32768
> allocated ... I don't get the issue.
>
>  
>
> > > Foo and Bar are technologies. They don't get TLVs.
>
> > > But for Foo we want the "Fridge-temperature" TLV so we assign value 1 for that
> TLV. We genuinely believe that only Foo will ever care about the
> temperature of the fridge.
>
> > > Now, along comes Bar. Bar also wants to know the temperature of the fridge and
> would like to simply use the same TLV. But it is allowed. So a new TLV
> must be assigned from the registry (presumably 2).
>
> > > Oh wait, here is the Humbug switching technology, that *also* cares about
> fridge temperatures.
>
>  
>
> > > See my point?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
>  
>
> Fatai
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas