Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-16.txt

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:58:35 -0700

Hi Lou and CCAMPers.  I haven't heard anything on this issue in two 
weeks.  One simple way out of this would be to just use a variable 
length field for the OIC using the ITU-T application string rather than 
a fixed 64 bit field.
If the ITU-T comes up with another specific encoding (64 bit or 
otherwise) in the future we can make sure to have a place holder. 
However, currently the ITU-T only defines application strings for this 
purpose.

If I don't hear any other suggestions in two weeks, I'll make the change 
to incorporate variable length strings and keep place holders for 
defining fixed length fields.  Then we can move this and related WSON 
documents into last call.

Best Regards
Greg B.

On 8/20/2012 11:00 AM, Greg Bernstein wrote:
> Optical Interface Class draft authors can you respond to Lou/List.  
> Let me know if we need to update the text.  We are trying to get this 
> into last call.
> Best Regards
> Greg
> On 8/20/2012 10:28 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Authors,
>>
>> I see that the draft says:
>>       In case of ITU Application Code, there should be a mapping between
>>       the string defining the application code and the 64 bits number
>>       implementing the optical interface class.
>>
>> Where is this mapping defined?  Doesn't it have to be either in this
>> draft or a normative reference?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 7:14 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>> directories.
>>>   This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement 
>>> Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>     Title           : Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information 
>>> Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
>>>     Author(s)       : Greg M. Bernstein
>>>                            Young Lee
>>>                            Dan Li
>>>                            Wataru Imajuku
>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-16.txt
>>>     Pages           : 33
>>>     Date            : 2012-08-16
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>     A wavelength switched optical network (WSON) requires that certain
>>>     key information elements are made available to facilitate path
>>>     computation and the establishment of label switching paths (LSPs).
>>>     The information model described in "Routing and Wavelength
>>>     Assignment Information for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks"
>>>     shows what information is required at specific points in the WSON.
>>>     Part of the WSON information model contains aspects that may be of
>>>     general applicability to other technologies, while other parts are
>>>     fairly specific to WSONs.
>>>
>>>     This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for
>>>     the WSON specific information elements. It is intended that
>>>     protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe 
>>> how
>>>     information is carried for specific uses. Such encodings can be 
>>> used
>>>     to extend GMPLS signaling and routing protocols. In addition these
>>>     encodings could be used by other mechanisms to convey this same
>>>     information to a path computation element (PCE).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-16
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-16
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:16:44 -0400

Greg,
	Why not start with the concrete proposal that's already on the table,
i.e., the text in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinelli-wson-interface-class-03?
Frankly, I'm not sure why that text wasn't incorporated in the first
place and figured I missed something -- which is why I sent my earlier mail.

Lou

---

From: Dieter Beller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:04:13 +0200

Hi Lou, Greg , and CCAMPers,

defining a mapping table (encoding) as proposed in the mentioned
draft below seems

to be a reasonable way how to move forward. I do have some
reservations when

dealing with strings in protocols.

Thanks,

Dieter

On 04.09.2012 22:16, Lou Berger wrote:

Greg,

Lou

Best Regards
Greg B.

Authors,

Thanks,
Lou

Abstract:

--

DIETER

BELLER

ALCATEL-LUCENT

DEUTSCHLAND AG

PROJECT MANAGER ASON/GMPLS
CONTROL PLANE

NETWORKS GROUP, OPTICS DIVISION

TERRESTRIAL OPTICS UNIT

Lorenzstrasse 10

70435 Stuttgart, Germany

T: +49 711 821 43125

M: +49 175 7266874

[email-masked]

Alcatel-Lucent
Deutschland AG

Domicile of the Company: Stuttgart · Local
Court Stuttgart HRB 4026

Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Michael
Oppenhoff

Board of Management: Wilhelm Dresselhaus
(Chairman) · Hans-Jörg Daub ·

Dr. Rainer Fechner ·
Andreas Gehe

This e-mail and its
attachments, if any, may contain
confidential information.

If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us and delete or destroy the

e-mail and its attachments, if any,
immediately. If you have received this
e-mail in

error, you must not forward or make use of
the e-mail and its attachments, if any.

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:03:47 -0700

Hi Lou, I'll look at that text.  I added to our document what the QIC 
authors suggested.  Maybe they were planning something else?
Greg

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:18:46 -0400

Greg,
	Okay.  Based on the meeting/discussions and the draft, I had expected
there was sufficient consensus & text to work from.  As editors, you're
free to document your perspective on consensus as works best for you.
Let us (chairs) know if you need assistance and we'll figure out how to
help.

Lou

---

From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:02:34 +0000

Hi Greg, Lou,

having a quick look to wson draft update I generally agree on content (as expected) what I'm wandering if it worth moving the interface class encoding within  the draft-ieft-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.

Here an alternate proposal on the table: 
leave the generic OIC container definition within current wson-encode draft and put specific OIC encoding (with related ITU references) in a separate draft (which could be a new version of draft-martinelli-wson-interface-class or a brand new draft). This separation will probably allow finalizing the wson-info-model and wson-encoding separately from specific OIC content (so we'll collect most updated ITU references as already mentioned we still miss few of them.  

I guess is for  WG chairs to decide.

If we stay with current doc splitting I'll go for a detailed review on latest updates. Sorry for raising it with a bit of delay but, just want to make sure was an option consciously avoided.

Cheers
G

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:22:20 -0700

Hi Giovanni we updated the WSON encode draft back on September 5th to 
put the interface class encoding into the draft. This was in response to 
the question raised by Lou in a August 20th email.  Lou, Deborah and OIC 
draft authors do we need to change this back?
Please let us know ASAP as we are trying to get all the WSON drafts into 
last call and this seems to be the last outstanding issue.

Best Regards
Greg

---

From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:30:57 +0000

Hi Greg,

I know looks like a little bouncing but was just wondering if there's a partitioning that at the end will simplify even current wson-encode draft management (so the path to last call). 

Anyway I'm fine with any wg chairs decision

cheers
G

On Sep 11, 2012, at 22:22 , Greg Bernstein wrote:

> Hi Giovanni we updated the WSON encode draft back on September 5th to put the interface class encoding into the draft. This was in response to the question raised by Lou in a August 20th email.  Lou, Deborah and OIC draft authors do we need to change this back?
> Please let us know ASAP as we are trying to get all the WSON drafts into last call and this seems to be the last outstanding issue.
> 
> Best Regards
> Greg

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:07:57 -0400

Giovanni,
	From the process standpoint, splitting the drafts as you suggest would
make the new draft a normative reference (in the current  draft) which
would result in the current draft's publication being blocked until the
new draft is also ready for publication.  Given that the new draft
doesn't exist and would need to start at the beginning of the WG
process, I'm not sure there's much positive value in the proposed split
from the process standpoint.

That said, if there was a good technical reason for the split, we should
discuss it.

Was there any technical rationale for your proposal or was it purely
motivated by process?  If the former, can you elaborate?

Lou

---

From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:56:05 +0000

Lou,

> from the process standpoint.

GM> ok

> motivated by process?  If the former, can you elaborate?

GM> yes reason was merely technical
i) wson-info-model and wson-encode define the "optical interface class" and an object with the related list of object. So in details, updates on both draft are basically on up to draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-17 section 5.2.1 first picture (which define the OIC format). Probably once OIC and OIC-list are defined these two documents can progress independently, right?

ii) Code points for specific ITU recommendations and related application codes encoding may reside in a separate draft so it can be refined further (i.e. finalize the list of related ITU recommendation, finalize the encoding). This draft will actually hold the references to ITU documents.

hope made it bit more clear. Anyway, if you feel current format is good enough I'm ok as well.

Cheers
G

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:08:23 -0400

Giovanni,
	I don't have a strong preference for where the code points are defined,
just that they are.  I do think that there is strong justification for
the drafts that collectively support a solution to progress as as a
group.  I, from the chair perspective, defer to the authors to propose
their preferred approach to documenting the solution.  The WG can
agree/disagree from a proposal once made.

But not having the full solution documented, e.g., using fields without
formal definitions, is a good way to limit progressing the work.

Lou

---

From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:10:53 +0000

got the point, thx!

~G

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:36:40 -0700

So it seems we'll stick with defining the optical interface class ITU-T 
string mappings to 64 bit encoding in the WSON Encode draft.
OIC draft authors can you double check what we put in 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-17.txt 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-17.txt>. 
We took this from the OIC draft but had to change some text and a bit of 
the encoding (a bit map seemed needed for suffixes).

Best Regards
Greg