From nobody Tue Jul 1 21:49:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833CA1A0AE7; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:49:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 Mo1yshvOqlPA; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B631A0ABE; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:48:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.5.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140702044859.22731.29071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:48:59 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/WytZMYdq_zXIIRrf8ic6l71yn28 Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:49:01 -0000 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 : Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Authors : Dhruv Dhody Udayasree Palle Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy Ramon Casellas Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2014-07-01 Abstract: The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly excluded in a path setup. This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude domains during path setup where domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility (such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS)). Note that the use of AS as an abstract node representing domain is already defined in existing RSVP-TE specefications, albeit with a 2-Byte AS number. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jul 2 00:30:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D891A0AA1 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 1UrEVgmFnVfK for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BCE51A040B for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGR97520; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:30:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 08:30:02 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.76]) by SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:29:52 +0800 From: "Yemin (Amy)" To: Fatai Zhang , Gregory Mirsky , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV Thread-Index: Ac+O7u90aym7H5uoQvO3hZMzL1AZewBYoRcgAV0tjqA= Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:29:51 +0000 Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D920C7@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B7E0051@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.169.33.63] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D920C7szxema506mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/xuBbmSPLx3hf_FM7jnRuSf3Qu-s Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:30:07 -0000 --_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D920C7szxema506mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I also prefer the second approach. The first approach seems not to resolve = the backward issues, unless all the legacy nodes are updated to accept the = new length of Ethernet BW Profile TLV. And on the other side, the Availabil= ity TLV extension is only for links with variable discrete bandwidth. Thus = I feel it might be not suitable to define the Availability TLV MUST be acco= mpanied with Ethernet BW Profile TLV. Will update the draft following by the second approach. Any more comments are welcome. BR, Amy From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fatai Zhang Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:55 PM To: Gregory Mirsky; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV Hi Greg, I think there were some similar discussions on Bandwidth encoding for [draf= t-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensionsin] in PCE WG. Per RFC3471, Bandwidth encodings are carried in 32 bit number in IEEE float= ing point format. There were lots of discussions on how to encode the accur= ate bandwidth information for the transport networks. Consequently, two new= types of Bandwidth are being defined in [draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi= onsin], which are variable. Therefore, I would prefer to introduce a new type of BW Profile, which shou= ld be the second option you mentioned below if my understanding is correct = on your options. Best Regards Fatai From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:34 PM To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV Dear All, on behalf of authors of the RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Links with Vari= able Discrete Bandwidth would like to ask for expert opinion. The Availabil= ity sub-TLV defined in the draft as a sub-TLV under Ethernet bandwidth prof= ile. The length field in the Ethernet bandwidth profile will be different f= rom the current definition(24), which might cause some backward issues. Possible way to address this problem: * define Availability as TLV that MUST be accompanied by Ethernet B= W Profile TLV; * define Extended Ethernet BW Profile TLV that includes Ethernet BW= TLV and has variable length. Definition of Availability characteristics re= mains as sub-TLV which MAY be included into Extended Ethernet BW Profile TL= V. Regards, Greg --_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D920C7szxema506mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

 

I also prefer the second approach. The first approach seems not t= o resolve the backward issues, unless all the legacy nodes are updated to a= ccept the new length of Ethernet BW Profile TLV. And on the other side, the Availability TLV extension is only for lin= ks with variable discrete bandwidth. Thus I feel it might be not suitable t= o define the Availability TLV MUST be accompanied with Ethernet BW Profile = TLV.

Will update the draft following by the second approach.

Any more comments are welcome.

 

BR,

Amy

 

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fatai Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV=

 

Hi Greg,

 

I think there were some similar discussions on Bandwidth encoding= for [draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensionsin] in PCE WG.

 

Per RFC3471, Bandwidth encodings are carried in 32 bit number in IEE=
E floating point format. There were lots of discussions on how to encode th=
e accurate bandwidth information for the transport networks. Consequently, =
two new types of Bandwidth are being defined in [draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-=
extensionsin], which are variable.

 

Therefo= re, I would prefer to introduce a new type of BW Profile, which should be t= he second option you mentioned below if my understanding is correct on your options.

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Best Re= gards

&n= bsp;

Fatai

 

From: CCAMP [mail= to:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:34 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] Backward compatibility for Availability sub-TLV

 

Dear All,

on behalf of authors of the RSV= P-TE Signaling Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth would l= ike to ask for expert opinion. The Availability sub-TLV defined in the draf= t as a sub-TLV under Ethernet bandwidth profile. The length field in the Ethernet bandwidth profile will be differ= ent from the current definition(24), which might cause some backward issues= .

Possible way to address this pr= oblem:

·         define Availability as = TLV that MUST be accompanied by Ethernet BW Profile TLV;<= /p>

·         define Extended Etherne= t BW Profile TLV that includes Ethernet BW TLV and has variable length. Def= inition of Availability characteristics remains as sub-TLV which MAY be inc= luded into Extended Ethernet BW Profile TLV.

 

Re= gards,

&n= bsp;       Greg

--_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D920C7szxema506mbschi_-- From nobody Wed Jul 2 05:46:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F0A1A0087 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JwznRXTena9c for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2BAB1A005F for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f798a6d000000e9b-18-53b3ff176a99 Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 73.E2.03739.71FF3B35; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:46:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by ESESSHC018.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:46:15 +0200 From: Daniele Ceccarelli To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: CCAMP slots requests - IETF 90 Thread-Index: Ac+Qd8w6ykK12yH+TwGAoeeF7m1AcgFe657A Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:46:14 +0000 Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812735725@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481272FB8E@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481272FB8E@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812735725ESESSMB301erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7E/83BBuePcVg8mXODxYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGe0NR1gK1hZUTD+W1sD4NrmLkZNDQsBE4vTj78wQtpjEhXvr 2boYuTiEBI4yStzufsYC4SxmlPi48A5jFyMHB5uAlcSTQz4gDSICuhJ7N14HaxYW0JZY+3ke M0iJiICOxKpLWhAlRhJfd24GK2ERUJFoWdHNAmLzCvhK/D6+hA3EFgKypyxaywpicwr4SRyd /w/MZhSQlZiwexEjiM0sIC5x68l8Jog7BSSW7DkPdbOoxMvHIPUcQLaixPJ+OYjyfIl7DxYw QawSlDg58wnLBEaRWUgmzUJSNgtJGURcT+LG1ClsELa2xLKFr5khbF2JGf8OsSCLL2BkX8Uo WpxaXJybbmSsl1qUmVxcnJ+nl5dasokRGD0Ht/zW3cG4+rXjIUYBDkYlHl6F75uChVgTy4or cw8xSnOwKInzLjo3L1hIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMHp1QDoxP3riP6POEcp8qssxLz l82ZpeJtqhK8+9MmhS/8u1eEXnsyoyazXkKN44meq9JVvlsPmyvOnYgUmSEhnirXwjv7imfU wal9m67OqH4xKyrzUkbJvWr3ez4Z4kU8vd/W9yxY63zf60P8I8YZG+cErxQTuf3+685CrnUT S70PSRnEyH9LaPz9W4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAO7WOG9/AgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2-M6b0IGGRZhhzm0v-z4JFVL0iY Subject: Re: [CCAMP] CCAMP slots requests - IETF 90 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:46:21 -0000 --_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812735725ESESSMB301erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Friendly reminder... Please note that the deadline for requesting a slot is tomorrow. BR Daniele From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli Sent: mercoled=EC 25 giugno 2014 15:17 To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] CCAMP slots requests - IETF 90 Dear CCAMP, IETF 90 meeting is approaching and it's time to start collecting agenda slo= ts requests. Keeping this in mind: WG Draft authors are expected to present if there are open issues to discus= s, or to send status to the list *1 week* prior to the WG meeting if not p= resenting. Status includes review of: any recent changes, any open discussi= ons or issues, and planned next steps. Agenda Requests: - To submit a request, please fill the survey at the following link: http:/= /www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1708635/IETF-90-CCAMP-slot-requests - Please fill the survey no later than Thursday, July 3rd. Presentations: If you are presenting slides please make sure you send them to all *indi= viduals* listed above (Chairs, Secretary and exclude CCAMP) no later than = Sunday, July 20th. Reminder about a few important dates: * 2014-07-04 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all draft= s, including -00) by UTC 23:59 * 2014-07-07 (Monday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59, * 2014-07-14 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59 * 2014-07-20 - 2014-07-25: 90th IETF Meeting in Toronto, ON, Canada. BR Daniele & CCAMP chairs --_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812735725ESESSMB301erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Friendly reminder̷= 0;

 

Please note that the d= eadline for requesting a slot is tomorrow.

 

BR
Daniele

 

From: CCAMP [m= ailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: mercoled=EC 25 giugno 2014 15:17
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] CCAMP slots requests - IETF 90

 

Dear CCAMP,

 

IETF 90 meeting is approaching and it’s time t= o start collecting agenda slots requests.

 

Keeping this in mind:

WG Draft authors are expected to present if there= are open issues to discuss, or to send status to the list  *1 week* p= rior to the WG meeting if not presenting. Status includes review of: any re= cent changes, any open discussions or issues, and planned next steps.

 

Agenda Requests:

- To submit a request, please fill the sur= vey at the following link: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1708635/IETF-90-CCAMP-slot-requests

- Please fill the survey no later than Thursda= y, July 3rd.

 

Presentations:

  If you are presenting slides please make s= ure you send them to  all *individuals* listed above (Chairs, Secretar= y and exclude CCAMP) no later  than Sunday, July  20th.

&= nbsp;

Reminder about a few important dates:

  • 2014-07-04 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59=
  • 2014-07-07 (Monday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59,
  • 2014-07-14 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59
  • 2014-07-20 - 2014-07-25: 90th IETF Meeting in Toronto,= ON, Canada.

BR

Daniele & CCAMP cha= irs

 

--_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812735725ESESSMB301erics_-- From nobody Wed Jul 2 13:20:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDED1A0385 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 v_MftCbnPkyu for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F7B1A0240 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u57so11912097wes.19 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :thread-index:content-language; bh=0AOCoZH0WYpoDKEiF049zWuJyl1mEmp3x469+uM4WtY=; b=NJwy/tiDZQ0dzq4AmZTtuFkUJ4wTf+Ih3Y4wbMugHP9oNwdvCcMKzlQhgtFqSudv9F UsZN5FuMAJOJOuHPaE/gWHKKdDBGDH3ja5DVEV7NhewWju/mu4gbkmpNbibW7ktjt5bH nOBod0nSvfsxlgDFuL2q3rAJewgDmu4zzjZ6jwQVgB+yNWkFmaRuQKciDDDrtTX0OmIL vZovwVDx86PtCjTlxBYIry9t/J6F/cHdFiTEHmzPHw7mNbF3jjKdPcxxWBVek6CvLOJA JYcfISi2ujwBactAOU7xkeUw0PQkjTsI692/wCzunBcP1jifxXpBBvwKmGIwrM6H5Ui2 FIzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9PHAdOXb/ipDxEI7npxAzrcfojiDBkTm1MdzqTusPK+0d3v9JSErifYugbfLmiRulSswi X-Received: by 10.194.177.168 with SMTP id cr8mr141819wjc.134.1404332431511; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk. [88.97.23.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm58777269wiy.13.2014.07.02.13.20.29 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Daniel King X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" From: "Daniel King" To: "'Mach Chen'" , "'Gregory Mirsky'" References: <20140617092149.21204.44479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:20:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20bb01cf9633$11581f00$34085d00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQI8Yatb8VlGf31dDgiRq2JD7jud+QKATJg6mp+bPiA= Content-Language: en-gb Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/au58YVl_RbaMgwPHAnXQfa57BBc Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:20:37 -0000 Hi Mach & Greg, Having read the recent version of the I-D, I had some operational questions: 1. What happens if a malicious or misconfigured router joins a role-based mesh-group? Is there anything (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting role-based mesh-group TLVs? 2. Is it legitimate to set the Root and Leaf bits, what about setting all the bits? Just wondering if there are certain role combinations that may be defined as illegitimate. The I-D might also benefit from an error handling sub-section. 3. Are there scaling issues related to: o The number of mesh groups that may exist? o The number of mesh groups to which any router can belong? o Is it possible by misconfiguration, design, or (again) maliciousness to advertise a very large number of groups? 4. The I-D was proposed early 2013, any update/feedback on implementations? It would be worth raising awareness of "running code" for the proposal, as per RFC6982. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen Sent: 26 June 2014 09:28 To: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02.txt Hi, We uploaded an update for the role based auto mesh draft, we'd like you could take a look at the draft, your suggestions and comments are always welcome! Thanks, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:22 PM > To: Mach Chen; Greg Mirsky; Lizhenbin; Mach Chen; Greg Mirsky; > Lizhenbin > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02.txt > has been successfully submitted by Mach(Guoyi) Chen and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh > Revision: 02 > Title: Routing Extensions for Discovery of Role-based MPLS Label > Switching Router (MPLS LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership > Document date: 2014-06-17 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 14 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh > -02.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh/ > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02 > > Abstract: > A Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh-group is defined as a group of Label > Switch Routers (LSRs) that are connected by a full mesh of TE LSPs. > Routing (OSPF and IS-IS) extensions for discovery Multiprotocol Label > Switching (MPLS) LSR TE mesh membership has been defined to automate > the creation of mesh of TE LSPs. > > This document introduces a role-based TE mesh-group that applies to > the scenarios where full mesh TE LSPs is not necessary and TE LSPs > setup depends on the roles of LSRs in a TE mesh-group. Interior > Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing extensions for automatic discovery of > role-based TE mesh membership are defined accordingly. > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 3 13:56:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A091B2A30 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 xRyPQVsNHM6K for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0211.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922A31B2A1F for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.980.8; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:56:44 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.149]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.149]) with mapi id 15.00.0980.000; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:56:43 +0000 From: Gert Grammel To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHg== Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:56:43 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.10] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 0261CCEEDF x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(95666004)(85852003)(76482001)(107046002)(77982001)(83072002)(99286002)(106356001)(76576001)(87936001)(2656002)(15975445006)(74316001)(83322001)(107886001)(19580395003)(21056001)(99396002)(15202345003)(79102001)(19300405004)(229853001)(74662001)(31966008)(92566001)(86362001)(19625215002)(46102001)(74502001)(16236675004)(33646001)(66066001)(101416001)(80022001)(81542001)(77096002)(64706001)(20776003)(105586002)(85306003)(50986999)(54356999)(81342001)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB043; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d3895ef54fd2478597c93c06eca5c327BN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/LqLAiWWmYPdD7Up2zvHo7AR_faA Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 20:56:48 -0000 --_000_d3895ef54fd2478597c93c06eca5c327BN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-= 698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698= -2-snmp-mib/ Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like = to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We als= o work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q= 14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings. As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link M= anagement of G.698.2 compliant interfaces. ------------------------------------- Gert Grammel --_000_d3895ef54fd2478597c93c06eca5c327BN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The authors of  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert= -ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib/

Put new versions out and would = encourage discussion on the list. We’d like to collect input before t= he meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also work in parallel on a d= raft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.=

 

As a reminder: the drafts defin= e parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 compliant = interfaces.

------------= -------------------------

Gert Grammel

 

 

--_000_d3895ef54fd2478597c93c06eca5c327BN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_-- From nobody Thu Jul 3 15:05:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36101B2836; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 SOU7uLwi-ptk; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C18A1A032E; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140703220453.10425.88096.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:04:53 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/k5rxX-95hdZJ7bOMa5X62DaY9I8 Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:04:59 -0000 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 : Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks Authors : Greg M. Bernstein Sugang Xu Young Lee Giovanni Martinelli Hiroaki Harai Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-07-03 Abstract: This memo provides extensions to Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling for control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Such extensions are applicable in WSONs under a number of conditions including: (a) when optional processing, such as regeneration, must be configured to occur at specific nodes along a path, (b) where equipment must be configured to accept an optical signal with specific attributes, or (c) where equipment must be configured to output an optical signal with specific attributes. In addition this memo provides mechanisms to support distributed wavelength assignment with choice in distributed wavelength assignment algorithms. These extensions build on previous work for the control of lambda and G.709 based networks, i.e. update RFC6205, to make it applicable to WSON-LSC capable equipment. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jul 3 23:10:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F011B2BEA for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 23:10:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.437 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6ALPdtc7bbr1 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 23:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D209A1A0AEE for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 23:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJP73241; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:10:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 07:10:35 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.190]) by SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:10:33 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Daniel King , "'Gregory Mirsky'" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHPig2YkmaEBt/Sck+xQ35xjsNJJ5uDHGlQgAmvgACAAq29UA== Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 06:10:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140617092149.21204.44479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20bb01cf9633$11581f00$34085d00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20bb01cf9633$11581f00$34085d00$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.28.44] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/7lfZGDLmPjtIiOgLwo9T2wrLUxY Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: [CCAMP] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBm?= =?gb2312?b?b3IgZHJhZnQtbGktY2NhbXAtcm9sZS1iYXNlZC1hdXRvbWVzaC0wMi50eHQ=?= X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:10:50 -0000 SGkgRGFuLA0KDQpUaGFua3MgZm9yIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LCB2ZXJ5IGdvb2QgY29tbWVu dHMgYW5kIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlZSBteSByZXBseSBpbmxpbmUuLi4NCg0KPiAt LS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCj4gt6K8/sjLOiBEYW5pZWwgS2luZyBbbWFpbHRvOmRrQGRhbmll bGtpbmcubmV0XSC0+rHtIERhbmllbCBLaW5nDQo+ILeiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOo31MIzyNUgNDoy MA0KPiDK1bz+yMs6IE1hY2ggQ2hlbjsgJ0dyZWdvcnkgTWlyc2t5Jw0KPiCzrcvNOiBjY2FtcEBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KPiDW98ziOiBSRTogW0NDQU1QXSBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9y DQo+IGRyYWZ0LWxpLWNjYW1wLXJvbGUtYmFzZWQtYXV0b21lc2gtMDIudHh0DQo+IA0KPiBIaSBN YWNoICYgR3JlZywNCj4gDQo+IEhhdmluZyByZWFkIHRoZSByZWNlbnQgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUg SS1ELCBJIGhhZCBzb21lIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIHF1ZXN0aW9uczoNCj4gDQo+IDEuIFdoYXQgaGFw cGVucyBpZiBhIG1hbGljaW91cyBvciBtaXNjb25maWd1cmVkIHJvdXRlciBqb2lucyBhIHJvbGUt YmFzZWQNCj4gbWVzaC1ncm91cD8NCg0KVGhpcyB3aWxsIHJlc3VsdCBpbiBlc3RhYmxpc2hpbmcg c29tZSB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBMU1BzLCBidXQgaXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGZhciBsZXNzIHRoYW4gdGhl IGFtb3VudCBvZiBmdWxsLW1lc2guDQoNCj4gSXMgdGhlcmUgYW55dGhpbmcgKGRhbmdlcm91cykg dGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgbGVhcm5lZCBhYm91dCB0aGUNCj4gbmV0d29yayBieSBpbnNwZWN0aW5nIHJv bGUtYmFzZWQgbWVzaC1ncm91cCBUTFZzPw0KDQpCeSBpbnNwZWN0aW5nIHRoZSByb2xlLWJhc2Vk IG1lc2gtZ3JvdXAgVExWcywgaXQgd2lsbCBsZWFybiB0aGUgcm9sZXMgb2YgZWFjaCBMU1IuIElH UCBoYXMgYWxyZWFkeSB1c2VkIHRvIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgbWFueSB0aGluZ3MgdGhhdCBpbmNsdWRl IHRvcG9sb2d5LCBub2RlIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcywgZXRjLiBJTUhPLCB0aGUgcm9sZSBvZiBhbiBM U1IgaXMgbm90IHNwZWNpYWwgdG8gdGhvc2UgdG9wb2xvZ3kgYW5kIG5vZGUgY2FwYWJpbGl0aWVz LiBCdXQgeW91IGFyZSByaWdodCwgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBpcyBhbHdheXMgbmVl ZGVkLiBXZSB3aWxsIHRoaW5rIG1vcmUgYWJvdXQgdGhpcy4NCg0KPiANCj4gMi4gSXMgaXQgbGVn aXRpbWF0ZSB0byBzZXQgdGhlIFJvb3QgYW5kIExlYWYgYml0cywgd2hhdCBhYm91dCBzZXR0aW5n IGFsbCB0aGUgYml0cz8NCj4gSnVzdCB3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgdGhlcmUgYXJlIGNlcnRhaW4gcm9s ZSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgZGVmaW5lZCBhcw0KPiBpbGxlZ2l0aW1hdGUuIFRo ZSBJLUQgbWlnaHQgYWxzbyBiZW5lZml0IGZyb20gYW4gZXJyb3IgaGFuZGxpbmcgc3ViLXNlY3Rp b24uDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgcGxhbiB0byByZW1vdmUgdGhlIFAyTVAgcGFydC4gQnV0IGFzIGZvciB0 aGUgY29tYmluZWQgcm9sZSwgdGhlcmUgYXJlIGluZGVlZCBzdWNoIHNvbWUgc2NlbmFyaW9zIHRo YXQgYSBub2RlIG1heSBoYXZlIGJvdGggUiBhbmQgTCwgb3IgYm90aCBIIGFuZCBTIHJvbGUuDQoN Cj4gDQo+IDMuIEFyZSB0aGVyZSBzY2FsaW5nIGlzc3VlcyByZWxhdGVkIHRvOg0KPiANCj4gbyBU aGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIG1lc2ggZ3JvdXBzIHRoYXQgbWF5IGV4aXN0Pw0KPiBvIFRoZSBudW1iZXIg b2YgbWVzaCBncm91cHMgdG8gd2hpY2ggYW55IHJvdXRlciBjYW4gYmVsb25nPw0KDQpWZXJ5IGdv b2QgcXVlc3Rpb24sIEkgaGF2ZSBub3QgZGF0YSBpbiBoYW5kLCBidXQgd2Ugd2lsbCB0cnkgdG8g Y29sbGVjdCB0aGUgZGF0YSBhbmQgZG8gc29tZSBtYXRoIHdvcmssIGFuZCB3aWxsIHNoYXJlIHRo ZSBkYXRhIG9uY2Ugd2UgZ290IGl0Lg0KDQo+IG8gSXMgaXQgcG9zc2libGUgYnkgbWlzY29uZmln dXJhdGlvbiwgZGVzaWduLCBvciAoYWdhaW4pIG1hbGljaW91c25lc3MgdG8NCj4gYWR2ZXJ0aXNl IGEgdmVyeSBsYXJnZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgZ3JvdXBzPw0KDQpGb3IgTFNBL0xTUCBhZHZlcnRpc2Vt ZW50LCBhbnkgbWlzY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiwgZGVzaWduLCBvciAoYWdhaW4pIG1hbGljaW91c25l c3Mgd2lsbCBjYXVzZSBzb21lIHVud2FudGVkIGFkdmVydGlzZW1lbnRzLCBidXQgSSBkb24ndCB0 aGluayBpdCB3aWxsIGNhdXNlIGxhcmdlIG51bWJlciBvZiB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBhZHZlcnRpc2Vt ZW50cywgdW5sZXNzIHRoZSBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIGFuZCBkZXNpZ24gYXJlIHJlYWxseSBtZXNz IDotKQ0KDQo+IA0KPiA0LiBUaGUgSS1EIHdhcyBwcm9wb3NlZCBlYXJseSAyMDEzLCBhbnkgdXBk YXRlL2ZlZWRiYWNrIG9uIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucz8NCj4gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgd29ydGggcmFp c2luZyBhd2FyZW5lc3Mgb2YgInJ1bm5pbmcgY29kZSIgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbCwgYXMgcGVy DQo+IFJGQzY5ODIuDQoNCkFzIEkga25vdywgdGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gb24tZ29pbmcgaW1wbGVtZW50 YXRpb24gdGhpcyB0aW1lLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpNYWNoDQoNCj4gDQo+IEJyLCBEYW4uDQo+IA0K PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBDQ0FNUCBbbWFpbHRvOmNjYW1w LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBNYWNoIENoZW4NCj4gU2VudDogMjYgSnVu ZSAyMDE0IDA5OjI4DQo+IFRvOiBjY2FtcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW0NDQU1Q XSBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LWxpLWNjYW1wLXJvbGUtYmFz ZWQtYXV0b21lc2gtMDIudHh0DQo+IA0KPiBIaSwNCj4gDQo+IFdlIHVwbG9hZGVkIGFuIHVwZGF0 ZSBmb3IgdGhlIHJvbGUgYmFzZWQgYXV0byBtZXNoIGRyYWZ0LCB3ZSdkIGxpa2UgeW91IGNvdWxk DQo+IHRha2UgYSBsb29rIGF0IHRoZSBkcmFmdCwgeW91ciBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBhbmQgY29tbWVu dHMgYXJlIGFsd2F5cyB3ZWxjb21lIQ0KPiANCj4gVGhhbmtzLA0KPiBNYWNoDQo+IA0KPiA+IC0t LS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ID4gRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYu b3JnIFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0KPiA+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXks IEp1bmUgMTcsIDIwMTQgNToyMiBQTQ0KPiA+IFRvOiBNYWNoIENoZW47IEdyZWcgTWlyc2t5OyBM aXpoZW5iaW47IE1hY2ggQ2hlbjsgR3JlZyBNaXJza3k7DQo+ID4gTGl6aGVuYmluDQo+ID4gU3Vi amVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvcg0KPiA+IGRyYWZ0LWxpLWNjYW1wLXJv bGUtYmFzZWQtYXV0b21lc2gtMDIudHh0DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2Yg SS1ELCBkcmFmdC1saS1jY2FtcC1yb2xlLWJhc2VkLWF1dG9tZXNoLTAyLnR4dA0KPiA+IGhhcyBi ZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTWFjaChHdW95aSkgQ2hlbiBhbmQgcG9zdGVk IHRvIHRoZQ0KPiA+IElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IE5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1saS1j Y2FtcC1yb2xlLWJhc2VkLWF1dG9tZXNoDQo+ID4gUmV2aXNpb246CTAyDQo+ID4gVGl0bGU6CQlS b3V0aW5nIEV4dGVuc2lvbnMgZm9yIERpc2NvdmVyeSBvZiBSb2xlLWJhc2VkIE1QTFMNCj4gTGFi ZWwNCj4gPiBTd2l0Y2hpbmcgUm91dGVyIChNUExTIExTUikgVHJhZmZpYyBFbmdpbmVlcmluZyAo VEUpIE1lc2ggTWVtYmVyc2hpcA0KPiA+IERvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTQtMDYtMTcNCj4gPiBH cm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KPiA+IFBhZ2VzOgkJMTQNCj4gPiBVUkw6DQo+ ID4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtbGktY2NhbXAtcm9s ZS1iYXNlZC1hdXRvbWVzaA0KPiA+IC0wMi50eHQNCj4gPiBTdGF0dXM6DQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbGktY2NhbXAtcm9sZS1iYXNlZC1hdXRvbWVz aC8NCj4gPiBIdG1saXplZDoNCj4gPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1s aS1jY2FtcC1yb2xlLWJhc2VkLWF1dG9tZXNoLTAyDQo+ID4gRGlmZjoNCj4gPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1saS1jY2FtcC1yb2xlLWJhc2VkLWF1dG9tZXNo LTAyDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBBYnN0cmFjdDoNCj4gPiAgICBBIFRyYWZmaWMgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgKFRF KSBtZXNoLWdyb3VwIGlzIGRlZmluZWQgYXMgYSBncm91cCBvZiBMYWJlbA0KPiA+ICAgIFN3aXRj aCBSb3V0ZXJzIChMU1JzKSB0aGF0IGFyZSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgYnkgYSBmdWxsIG1lc2ggb2YgVEUg TFNQcy4NCj4gPiAgICBSb3V0aW5nIChPU1BGIGFuZCBJUy1JUykgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgZGlz Y292ZXJ5IE11bHRpcHJvdG9jb2wgTGFiZWwNCj4gPiAgICBTd2l0Y2hpbmcgKE1QTFMpIExTUiBU RSBtZXNoIG1lbWJlcnNoaXAgaGFzIGJlZW4gZGVmaW5lZCB0bw0KPiBhdXRvbWF0ZQ0KPiA+ICAg IHRoZSBjcmVhdGlvbiBvZiBtZXNoIG9mIFRFIExTUHMuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgICBUaGlzIGRvY3Vt ZW50IGludHJvZHVjZXMgYSByb2xlLWJhc2VkIFRFIG1lc2gtZ3JvdXAgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRv DQo+ID4gICAgdGhlIHNjZW5hcmlvcyB3aGVyZSBmdWxsIG1lc2ggVEUgTFNQcyBpcyBub3QgbmVj ZXNzYXJ5IGFuZCBURSBMU1BzDQo+ID4gICAgc2V0dXAgZGVwZW5kcyBvbiB0aGUgcm9sZXMgb2Yg TFNScyBpbiBhIFRFIG1lc2gtZ3JvdXAuICBJbnRlcmlvcg0KPiA+ICAgIEdhdGV3YXkgUHJvdG9j b2wgKElHUCkgcm91dGluZyBleHRlbnNpb25zIGZvciBhdXRvbWF0aWMgZGlzY292ZXJ5IG9mDQo+ ID4gICAgcm9sZS1iYXNlZCBURSBtZXNoIG1lbWJlcnNoaXAgYXJlIGRlZmluZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5n bHkuDQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IFBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5 IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mDQo+ID4gc3VibWlzc2lv biB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0DQo+ IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCj4gDQo+IF9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IENDQU1QIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBDQ0FNUEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWls bWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NjYW1wDQoNCg== From nobody Fri Jul 4 01:19:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE911B2C53 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 01:19:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 50gELZjMAbye for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 01:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11961B2C5D for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 01:19:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4424; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404461989; x=1405671589; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LnO/FsWer3Td9yGSQSlKXxVrRbZdL/T0uqUxOLAkIxc=; b=KNvVwbzI1dCEd7f3prF7o6QVNYVJqogn2B5C3OwdEXPsnYU7AGWvNSl4 JRfF6KRi3/KjeviZ+rB382S33c2vtTaOc8FVzL0bKtcbHXfm4jpNFJty/ ydzyP1wmC1Nbq+wrpdTCSW/ol7QTNKtyIyuCIHk26agQmhThYWwRUuLTA M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIKAJFitlOtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagw1SUwfGJgGBDBZ1hAMBAQECAncCDAYBCA4DAwECAWAdCAIEAQ0FCYg5CAXKABeObzMHBoQ9BZp2gUiSRIIBgUJsgUQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,599,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="58294238" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2014 08:19:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s648Jl7c024182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:19:48 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 03:19:47 -0500 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: Lou Berger , "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" , "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" , Xian Zhang Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHPXwGH7MranCMhykqHuJwx9kdOtZsfos2AgABEzoCAcC4pgA== Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:19:46 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5358122D.1030202@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.96] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/E1C1E8Ab0Aab4HsTg7KT9cFBDls Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:19:51 -0000 Hi Lou and WG-=20 We have address both (1. To reflect the Informational status; 2. Different problem space with draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc) comments from the WG and chairs. Would you please take a look at draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04.txt and advise if there is any outstanding change needed? We believe the draft is ready for the WG adoption, there is a good support in the meeting for this draft. Thanks Regards =8A Zafar -----Original Message----- From: "lberger@labn.net" Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:19 PM To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" , "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" , Xian Zhang , zali Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" , DEBORAH BRUNGARD Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04.txt >Rakesh, > There was some discussion in the last meeting on possible overlap >between this document and >draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc. Have you looked at this >document and/or discussed potential collaboration with the authors? > >Thanks, >Lou >On 4/23/2014 11:12 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote: >> Hi CCAMP WG and Chairs, >> >> We have updated the text in the draft to reflect the Informational >>status >> as per discussions at the last IETF. >> >> We believe the draft is ready for the WG adoption, there was a good >> support in the meeting for this draft. >> >> Please let us know your review comments. >> >> Thanks, >> Rakesh=20 >> >> P.S. Minutes from IETF-89 >> -------------------------- >> Draft: >> =20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-02 >> >> Presenter: Zafar Ali >> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/89/slides/slides-89-ccamp-26.pdf >> >> Lou Berger: There is inconsistency between the document and >>the >> intended status (informational) as it changes procedures. Either you >>make >> it >> standard track or change the text and make it informational. >> >> [poll] how many are interested in having it informational? >>[good >> support] >> >> Lou Berger: The document needs to be made consistent before we >> can discuss it further. I suggest making the document informational to >>be >> consistent with the slides. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2014-04-23 10:37 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" >> wrote: >> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Name: draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp >>> Revision: 04 >>> Title: RSVP-TE Signaling For GMPLS Restoration LSP >>> Document date: 2014-04-23 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Pages: 7 >>> URL: =20 >>>=20 >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration >>>-l >>> sp-04.txt >>> Status: =20 >>>=20 >>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-ls >>>p/ >>> Htmlized: =20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-04 >>> Diff: =20 >>>=20 >>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-= ls >>>p- >>> 04 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> In transport networks, there are requirements where Generalized >>> Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) end-to-end recovery scheme >>> needs to employ restoration Label Switched Path (LSP) while keeping >>> resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs reserved in the >>> network after the failure. >>> >>> This document reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using >>> Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) >>> signaling in the context of GMPLS end-to-end recovery when using >>> restoration LSP where failed LSP is not torn down. No new procedures >>> or mechanisms are defined by this document, and it is strictly >>> informative in nature. >>> >>> >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>> submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >> > From nobody Fri Jul 4 07:47:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4121B2D79; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 yiFj-Rg7n1_x; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 07:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DC21B2BF1; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 07:47:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140704144729.28717.46688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:47:29 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/gmg3Jki2cELuPoGOxkoqrehHL0c Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 14:47:30 -0000 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 : RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information Authors : Fatai Zhang Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Dan Li Cyril Margaria Matt Hartley Zafar Ali Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2014-07-04 Abstract: This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE link formed by a LSP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Jul 4 08:16:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984A81B2AE3 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 jGmP8receSZO for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D40661B2AE6 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:16:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=536; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404486971; x=1405696571; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=R1opbYIsnhcfdHLFHQRPDiuCf9+3aJbWW0tTbJIKb08=; b=RZWJv7NPe056cxqMsJhYM4TZRLHTcP3k8jHQ0Ucf7pWz3drtpbO4Xpgw hyU2MtOAQ4ZPAnBGH8raJYsTjyc8ktvjJNKNrNhRXnHbF0Ryjp5+oHWwu 6Vg7HNmWYqodu1qsaZXD9rbT73f4g8p0zQoLQFcUU9QBRC/Q8HFNeWtTs M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAMbEtlOtJV2P/2dsb2JhbABagw5SWsc1FnWECoELAYEAJwSIVQ2gBqpBF5JWgRYFmnaBSIoTiDGDQ4Iw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,601,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="58358650" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2014 15:16:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s64FGBXW015088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:16:11 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:16:10 -0500 From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" To: CCAMP Thread-Topic: Updates on draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-[info|encode] Thread-Index: AQHPl5ri75OatbPdF0mwETCmSyf/Dg== Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:16:10 +0000 Message-ID: <5FAB37B6-8520-45F8-8B26-4F21F9A9A675@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [144.254.172.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <33FE01BB0E364D489B6D7B9BF175507D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/BsrCeIF-bbO3oX3M94h6E36Pcms Subject: [CCAMP] Updates on draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-[info|encode] X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:16:13 -0000 Hi all, for those of you interested in the WSON optical impairment topic we did upd= ate the info model draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinelli-ccamp-= wson-iv-info-04. Basic changes relates to inputs received from liason http= s://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1288.=20 There=92s also an update to the assciated encoding draft http://tools.ietf.= org/html/draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-encode-04 We would be gratefull to anyone who wants to provide comments / suggestion= etc. Cheers G (& authors)= From nobody Fri Jul 4 09:05:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB371A01E8; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 zrI6YaHwMMf2; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50A61A004B; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:04:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140704160455.1866.31715.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 09:04:55 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-ez-hjkp7ye1QAPaYQslwe2rq0g Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-04.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 16:05:03 -0000 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 : LSP Attribute in ERO Authors : Cyril Margaria Giovanni Martinelli Steve Balls Ben Wright Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-04.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2014-07-04 Abstract: RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document proposes an extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or record generic attributes which apply to a given hop. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Jul 4 10:24:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14711B2DC7; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 ILHeGAebfgeF; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C93D1B2DE8; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:24:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140704172435.6991.22143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:24:35 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/B_anyt49Ny9A1Khsa-uxngk2ErI Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:24:43 -0000 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 : Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route Authors : Zafar Ali George Swallow Fatai Zhang Dieter Beller Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2014-07-04 Abstract: RFC 4874 specifies methods by which path exclusions may be communicated during RSVP-TE signaling in networks where precise explicit paths are not computed by the LSP source node. This document specifies procedures for additional route exclusion subobject based on Paths currently existing or expected to exist within the network. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Jul 7 08:42:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9771A031F; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 AHViVjXpzQNV; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7E51A032D; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:42:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: zali@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, zhangfatai@huawei.com, dieter.beller@alcatel-lucent.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140707154210.9460.93763.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:42:10 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ngXSA6WnMXCEYoh2cNTAAabgoO0 Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, dbrungard@att.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] IPR Disclosure: Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:42:14 -0000 Dear Zafar Ali, George Swallow, Fatai Zhang, Dieter Beller: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route" (draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2014-07-07 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2383/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp- lsp-diversity-04.""); The IETF Secretariat From nobody Mon Jul 7 23:19:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31421B2A58 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:19:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.252 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 R3o2UhfG6ECx for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87AF21B2A5A for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJS82098; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:19:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.42) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:19:31 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.76]) by SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:19:24 +0800 From: "Yemin (Amy)" To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHPmf0AbbDsIpzr6EyWTPE+gs5aepuVrnFA Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 06:19:24 +0000 Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D9294A@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.169.33.63] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FuCJ525p-EL1xzEWOJPQX_tf7gs Subject: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-05.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:19:36 -0000 RGVhciBDQ0FNUGVycywNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvbiBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgZXh0ZW5zaW9u IGZvciBsaW5rcyB3aXRoIHZhcmlhYmxlIGRpc2NyZXRlIGJhbmR3aWR0aCBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQg dGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgbGluayBiZWxvdy4gDQpUaGUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIGFkZHJl c3NlZCBpbiB0aGUgdXBkYXRlZCB2ZXJzaW9ucy4gQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IGluIGxhc3QgbWVldGluZywgYW5kIGFsc28gdGhlIGxpc3QgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiwgYSBuZXcgRXh0 ZW5kZWQgRXRoZXJuZXQgQmFuZHdpZHRoIFByb2ZpbGUgaXMgaW50cm9kdWNlZCB0byBhdm9pZCB0 aGUgYmFja3dhcmQgaXNzdWUuDQpXZSBiZWxpZXZlIGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIHJlYWR5IGZvciBXRyBh ZG9wdGlvbiwgYW5kIHRoZXJlJ3MgYSBnb29kIHN1cHBvcnQgaW4gdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgZm9yIHRo ZXNlIGRyYWZ0cy4NCkFzIGFsd2F5cywgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUuDQoNCkJSLA0KQW15 KG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgY28tYXV0aG9ycykNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0t LS0NCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0 c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBKdWx5IDA4LCAyMDE0IDEyOjAzIEFNDQpUbzog R3JlZyBNaXJza3k7IEFsZXNzYW5kcm8gRCdBbGVzc2FuZHJvOyBIaW1hbnNodSBDLiBTaGFoOyBH cmVnIE1pcnNreTsgQWxlc3NhbmRybyBEJ0FsZXNzYW5kcm87IFllbWluIChBbXkpOyBZZW1pbiAo QW15KTsgSGltYW5zaHUgU2hhaDsgTG9uZ2hhbzsgTG9uZ2hhbw0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNp b24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1sb25nLWNjYW1wLXJzdnAtdGUtYmFuZHdpZHRoLWF2 YWlsYWJpbGl0eS0wNS50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtbG9uZy1j Y2FtcC1yc3ZwLXRlLWJhbmR3aWR0aC1hdmFpbGFiaWxpdHktMDUudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNj ZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IE1pbiBZZSBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9z aXRvcnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1sb25nLWNjYW1wLXJzdnAtdGUtYmFuZHdpZHRoLWF2YWls YWJpbGl0eQ0KUmV2aXNpb246CTA1DQpUaXRsZToJCVJTVlAtVEUgU2lnbmFsaW5nIEV4dGVuc2lv biBmb3IgTGlua3Mgd2l0aCBWYXJpYWJsZSBEaXNjcmV0ZSBCYW5kd2lkdGgNCkRvY3VtZW50IGRh dGU6CTIwMTQtMDctMDQNCkdyb3VwOgkJSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpQYWdlczoJCTEx DQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJh ZnQtbG9uZy1jY2FtcC1yc3ZwLXRlLWJhbmR3aWR0aC1hdmFpbGFiaWxpdHktMDUudHh0DQpTdGF0 dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbG9uZy1j Y2FtcC1yc3ZwLXRlLWJhbmR3aWR0aC1hdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkvDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0 cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtbG9uZy1jY2FtcC1yc3ZwLXRlLWJhbmR3aWR0 aC1hdmFpbGFiaWxpdHktMDUNCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3Jm Y2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1sb25nLWNjYW1wLXJzdnAtdGUtYmFuZHdpZHRoLWF2YWlsYWJpbGl0 eS0wNQ0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIFBhY2tldCBzd2l0Y2hpbmcgbmV0d29yayBNQVkgY29udGFp biBsaW5rcyB3aXRoIHZhcmlhYmxlIGJhbmR3aWR0aCwNCiAgIGUuZy4sIGNvcHBlciwgcmFkaW8s IGV0Yy4gVGhlIGJhbmR3aWR0aCBvZiBzdWNoIGxpbmsgaXMgc2Vuc2l0aXZlIHRvDQogICBleHRl cm5hbCBlbnZpcm9ubWVudC4gQXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5IGlzIHR5cGljYWxseSB1c2VkIGZvciBkZXNj cmliaW5nDQogICB0aGUgbGluayBkdXJpbmcgbmV0d29yayBwbGFubmluZy4gVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVu dCBkZXNjcmliZXMgYW4NCiAgIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBmb3IgUlNWUC1URSBzaWduYWxpbmcgZm9yIHNl dHRpbmcgdXAgYSBsYWJlbCBzd2l0Y2hpbmcNCiAgIHBhdGggKExTUCkgaW4gYSBQYWNrZXQgU3dp dGNoZWQgTmV0d29yayAoUFNOKSBuZXR3b3JrIHdoaWNoIGNvbnRhaW5zDQogICBsaW5rcyB3aXRo IGRpc2NyZXRlbHkgdmFyaWFibGUgYmFuZHdpZHRoIGJ5IGludHJvZHVjaW5nIGFuIEV4dGVuZGVk DQogICBFdGhlcm5ldCBCYW5kd2lkdGggUHJvZmlsZSBUTFYgYW5kIGFuIE9QVElPTkFMIEF2YWls YWJpbGl0eSBzdWJfVExWDQogICBpbiBSU1ZQLVRFIHNpZ25hbGluZy4NCg0KQSByZWxhdGVkIGRy YWZ0IGlzIGluIGZvbGxvd2luZzoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCk5hbWU6CQlk cmFmdC1sb25nLWNjYW1wLW9zcGYtYXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5LWV4dGVuc2lvbg0KUmV2aXNpb246CTA0 DQpUaXRsZToJCU9TUEYgUm91dGluZyBFeHRlbnNpb24gZm9yIExpbmtzIHdpdGggVmFyaWFibGUg RGlzY3JldGUgQmFuZHdpZHRoDQpEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE0LTA3LTA0DQpHcm91cDoJCUlu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6CQk4DQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtbG9uZy1jY2FtcC1vc3BmLWF2YWlsYWJp bGl0eS1leHRlbnNpb24tMDQudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tl ci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbG9uZy1jY2FtcC1vc3BmLWF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eS1leHRlbnNp b24vDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtbG9u Zy1jY2FtcC1vc3BmLWF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eS1leHRlbnNpb24tMDQNCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBo dHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1sb25nLWNjYW1wLW9zcGYtYXZh aWxhYmlsaXR5LWV4dGVuc2lvbi0wNA0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEg Y291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBo dG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcu DQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoNCg== From nobody Tue Jul 8 13:34:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260661A000F for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham 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 xAZATzIdTA-h for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B10331A000E for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 7c55cb35.0.4995404.00-2297.13785432.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:34:16 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53bc55c80f6f8bc5-8e329f5b573467bed63481e8170c16bf4811f93a Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s68KYFnf005945 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:34:15 -0400 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s68KY9Zr005855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:34:11 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAH.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.152]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:33:53 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.145]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.152]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:33:52 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF 90 - Draft CCAMP Agenda & Reminder to WG draft Editors Thread-Index: Ac+a6+vcn+AMdF+OTcyxAKUfzu0DFA== Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:33:52 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.209] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB809DBMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=K5mV6VqI c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=4FUQZdzN5OIA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=jhmz5UIrLHEA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=Z8U5Wcp_0Qy8BYjJujwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=eRkz9U_] X-AnalysisOut: [C3xVyBlfW5uEA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=OiZw] X-AnalysisOut: [Yh9_u7S3iUb6:21] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/hxiNLI-9O9sYR0N6s8r5JbKC6nk Subject: [CCAMP] IETF 90 - Draft CCAMP Agenda & Reminder to WG draft Editors X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:34:20 -0000 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB809DBMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, A draft agenda for Toronto is now available, see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda/agenda-90-ccamp Unfortunately our hope for meeting just once this time will not be realized. (Although we're getting closer.) Please let us (chairs + Daniele) know if you have comments or if we missed anything. -- And slides are due on *Sunday, July 20th*. Authors of WG documents: If presenting, please plan to review (present) any changes that have been recently made, any open discussions or issues, as well as planned next steps. If you are not presenting, please send this information to the WG mail list 1 week* prior to the WG meeting, i.e., no later than July 14! If you think you can benefit from WG meeting time, please let us know. Editors of WG documents: Now is a good time to mention if you'd like any help from the WG or the chairs to help keep your documents moving along. (Inaction on a document can be interpreted as lack of on-going interest or lack of availability, neither of which are conducive to getting your documen= ts to RFC.) Much thanks, Lou and Deborah PS Kudos to Daniele for pulling the initial agenda together. --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB809DBMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,
    A draft agenda for Toronto is now available, see
 
 
Unfortunately our hope for meeting just once this time will not be
realized. (Although we're getting closer.)
 
Please let us (chairs + Daniele) know if you have comments or if
we missed anything.  -- And slides are due on *Sunday, July = 20th*.
 
Authors of WG documents:
 
    If presenting, please plan to review (present) any = changes that
    have been recently made, any open discussions or is= sues, as well
    as planned next steps.
 
    If you are not presenting, please send this informa= tion to the WG
    mail list 1 week* prior to the WG meeting, i.e., no= later than July 14!
    If you think you can benefit from WG meeting time, = please let us know.
 
Editors of WG documents:
 
    Now is a good time to mention if you'd like any hel= p from the
    WG or the chairs to help keep your documents moving= along. (Inaction
    on a document can be interpreted as lack of on-goin= g interest or lack
    of availability, neither of which are conducive to = getting your documents
    to RFC.)
 
Much thanks,
Lou and Deborah
 
PS Kudos to Daniele for pulling the initial agenda together.
 
 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB809DBMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_-- From nobody Wed Jul 9 06:01:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39F11A0647 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no 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 PDSETqYEE-yk for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail93.telekom.de (tcmail93.telekom.de [80.149.113.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043881A0645 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113599.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.118]) by tcmail91.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 09 Jul 2014 15:01:11 +0200 Received: from HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.92.150]) by HE113599.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.118]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:01:10 +0200 From: To: , Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:01:07 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpw Message-ID: <08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3HE101454emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/fMpYxww4jLVjj1UN7EvsgmlcTa0 Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:01:45 -0000 --_000_08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3HE101454emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello CCAMPers, I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with th= ese both documents. The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2. Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link= case? Every transponder could be configured and maintained in the same m= anner. Thanks, Manuel From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-cc= amp-g-698-2-snmp-mib The authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-= 698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698= -2-snmp-mib/ Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like = to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We als= o work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q= 14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings. As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link M= anagement of G.698.2 compliant interfaces. ------------------------------------- Gert Grammel --_000_08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3HE101454emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello CCAMPers,

 =

I worke= d through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these bot= h documents.

The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T= G.698.2.

Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelen= gth in the Black Link case?  Every transponder could be configured&nbs= p; and maintained in the same manner.

Thanks,
Manuel

 <= /p>

From: = CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
<= b>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ie<= /span>tf= .org)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and dr= aft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

The authors of  https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-= g-698-2-snmp-mib/

Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. W= e’d like to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute su= rprises. We also work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify wit= h SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.=

 <= /span>

As a reminder: the drafts= define parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 comp= liant interfaces.

--------------= -----------------------

Gert Grammel

 

 

= --_000_08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3HE101454emea1_-- From nobody Thu Jul 10 00:11:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BE11A0361 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 xTwmSlwg79KW for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C33921A035C for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18007; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404976324; x=1406185924; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dvQPsuKse20pwq6+vtHLAfEEa7179GJ2uvGw4zUVuqs=; b=DSVfLu6pTcqtJvaed01qTF0F2HSdHw1V1hKg1rguGW0oRaGcYsvSIYas bb26aI7nMlwdq1B0mPpM23vuhSouRuwkIK38FU6Ne06qSipeSdVspnp0L bCDtm7LVXae65crsyeEAhTESMeCpwVv0HPi4URdM1QlPuDbJAqtDKCBYN k=; X-Files: 273031C1-0F11-4D42-9226-D16B7CB14162[161].png : 1632 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAKM7vlOtJA2H/2dsb2JhbABZgkdHUlq/J4c/AYEHFnWEAwEBAQQFKBw+BAEIEQMBAQEGAQEBHwkFEAEDCwwUCQgBAQQBEQEGCIg0DcdTFwSOcCoJCg0KAQSEPwWFao19hxGUDoIBgUJsgUQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,636,1400025600"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="59685172" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2014 07:12:03 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6A7BVMF015563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:11:31 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.143]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 02:11:30 -0500 From: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" To: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" , "ggrammel@juniper.net" , "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpwADT8aQA= Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [144.254.172.40] Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/mzSoUy0957ZRGKbWffhntTNltvw Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:11:35 -0000 --_004_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_" --_000_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Manuel, I absolutely agree. Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) power is fund= amental for trouble shooting. Best Regards, Gabriele [http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif] Gabriele Galimberti Technical Leader Cisco Photonics Srl Via Philips, 12 20900 - Monza (MI) Italy www.cisco.com/global/IT/ ggalimbe@cisco.com Phone :+39 039 2091462 Mobile :+39 335 7481947 Fax :+39 039 2092049 From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM To: Gert Grammel >, "ccam= p@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Hello CCAMPers, I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with th= ese both documents. The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2. Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link= case? Every transponder could be configured and maintained in the same m= anner. Thanks, Manuel From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-cc= amp-g-698-2-snmp-mib The authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-= 698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698= -2-snmp-mib/ Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We=92d lik= e to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We a= lso work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and= Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings. As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link M= anagement of G.698.2 compliant interfaces. ------------------------------------- Gert Grammel --_000_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Manuel, 

I absolutely agree.  Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) pow= er is fundamental for trouble shooting.

Best Regards, 

Gabriele

3D"http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/l=



Gabriele Galimberti=
Technical Leader=
Cisco Photonics Srl


Via Phi= lips, 12

20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
www.cisco.com/global/IT/


ggalimbe@cisco.c= om
Phone :+39 039 2091462+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049













From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" <Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 = PM
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinig= ert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

Hello C= CAMPers,

&n= bsp;

I worke= d through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these bot= h documents.

The val= ues in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2.

Why sho= uld it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link case? =  Every transponder could be configured  and maintained in the sam= e manner.

Thanks,
Manuel

&n= bsp;

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galik= unze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

The authors of  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert= -ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib/

Put new versions out and would = encourage discussion on the list. We=92d like to collect input before the m= eeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also work in parallel on a draft= Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.=

 

As a reminder: the drafts defin= e parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 compliant = interfaces.

-------------------------------------

Gert Grammel

 

 

 --_000_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_-- --_004_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_ Content-Type: image/png; name="273031C1-0F11-4D42-9226-D16B7CB14162[161].png" Content-Description: 273031C1-0F11-4D42-9226-D16B7CB14162[161].png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="273031C1-0F11-4D42-9226-D16B7CB14162[161].png"; size=1632; creation-date="Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:11:29 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:11:29 GMT" Content-ID: <44A92599-B994-4F6B-A076-AA01D0EF704B> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAG4AAABJCAIAAABTkIQiAAAGJ0lEQVR4nO2be0xTVxzHv30gcHk5 bRmKyMCJrhDsNi0xzldikE2dZr5mSEnm/poylxi3ZAuOkhhjspANZ0zUhT9GyNwMzoHDSHD4GEGI QGtGAQ10iEyg1a1Cy50tdH9cd7kqRVp+5WHO54/m9HDOl3M+nHvP6W2QeTweMCiQT/YAXhyYSjKY SjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjImQWXLnXvTOt8bE62yxtz2 XfnvNea2aZo/CsoJ/n0lVxsqG5sBLNcsmI75ozDRq1KYp/A6HfNHgW07ZDCVZDCVZARQpa+HkqnW 3lcCpdLXQ8lUa+8HgToM+XoomWrt/SBQq9LXQ8lUa+8HBCqn+wdBqvzxqpzuHwQJ88d7r/yooBhA ZWOz8cSX4x/NtM5n50oymEoymEoyxqty3euvia9jqafKCXS+H4x329m66g3xdSz1VDmBzveD8apc rlnwUji3eP6cMdZT5QQ63w8I7pXexjFi/SgXlE85E5DvKxP9hQThBTUp+aMgm/h/Nmm5c49qIUxK vjcmQeWLCjtXksFUkhHYbeevy5fF8tw1a8g7jqWZ32PwlYCodPN8x5Wrt4qL79fXO81NADhNctL2 bTqDwTM4KFMoANQZDMa8PADa3NxlBw8KlQBsLa2N3x7ruVwldnx5zdoVhlxOrRoxn7daAYSo1Unb t2kPfDojPExs1lVb13Wh3FJRaa+plqujI15dmJC+LvH9XarFiwIxa3qVbp5vOHnK+Mk+aaXT3HS3 PlEHeAAZgCf3useVgK2l9dLuD+011dKOFnPTss8OcFBJ828eOjRk7R1uZu29W5+YMjAgqmy7WFGz f7/w9wAwZO21W3uNNdW3z/2y9puvA7E86VU+5TFsiVbJhUntAIBM9mxHz+Bge0WF2DJOn6WMiATw oLFxBje81hpOnmr4/Au5sx8AgoLCNMlKLsx+o04a1VVbdyljvbRGro4W1DtMxt/2ZmeUlJCvTWKV TqvtdmGh+FZbcDQxPR2AvaPjkd2O/1ffiLgGeHvrLaGs2rhpdX6+cFE7rbbgmVHSfMGjXB2dmpMj zVeGhgJw87z5+yIxNmFPdvL2rQCazpRYTp2Ay+U0N7Wf/kFlMFDOnFxlR1WVw2QUytqCo7p9Hwtl cQmI98QRhhIaEqWeLZRt58uqDXnzVq+ak6abGR8vzf/3TwsABAWl5uQ8ne/xAOjv6bEcPybUJ+zJ Xpv/lTIkBMDM5BR338POou8BWCoqddQqiQ9Dfd3dYjll1y7fhqJQxL79jvjWcvzYtZ07ft28pfmn M9J8t9MJQMlxI+TLZAAc3T1ihSZLL3gEwKlVSZmZCAoCwHfTf/UWwHOlcLn5xNylb264XqvauEms cZiM13buaLtYQZIfUIhVRsTEiOW28nJfu8sUitg03ZZzP2+4XqvNzRXr20vLPIODQr6S4wC4nU5v +cFRUWK560K50BHAo35He2kZXC4AyshIX8f2XIhVqlNTw5ZohXLD4cNtFyucVpvTarO1tHbV1gEQ JzYCHo+b5908LwNi03S63Fxxebr7Hg4NDQn5wa8kAIDL9Wy+m+cBRM6bF6fPEjoa8/JaSs46rbZ/ OjqMhYWdxY+3o+gVb9FOHOTbjmrxooVbNhtNRgAOk/FSxnpBx0BnZ2hc3HtlpR7vm/ig2327tOzu latRi5IA4MF92/myx6OMiJTL5cP55ia4XA6TsUqvn5WWJuZnFBYqQ0JmhIct2f2BsL0AuLZzx83l KwDYb9QJSzI4IVGTpaedOAJxrkzZm32/3SLORNQRGhc33MjL46g+c5O4+YpwmmRNll7c+oX8jpKz cmf/kLV3xPyYlSu1BUfF4630VBuckKg7ciQ2Tefv/LxCr5JTq1bn5/+xdKnl9I/SOUTMj4eXJSlU yuVyzJr91I/i9FlJmZnSmUvz/zaZhDPmEBceMT9e3IjkCsWyvXsiYmKai4qGl3ZU1Jx3NydlZi5Y n0412SdmEdDnlX48SpB2eW6vKfU4gz36JYM9rySDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSD qSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSTjP8P5+2z4huMfAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC --_004_CFE4088C63D37ggalimbeciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Jul 11 00:09:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F3C1B28BB for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Q9Sl5sVBISoM for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6428A1B2903 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHA05194; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:09:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:08:59 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.249]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:08:53 +0800 From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Status of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb Thread-Index: Ac+c1vhpKilLtfz/ShuwR59PRAGWMw== Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:08:52 +0000 Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927336BF629@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.76] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927336BF629nkgeml512mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZTB30huwitZoboL1YdWMDZAkB4A Cc: "dbrungard@att.com" Subject: [CCAMP] Status of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:09:04 -0000 --_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927336BF629nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Here is the status update of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb: The latest version v-03 was submitted in April, which only has some editori= al changes. Since this draft becomes stable, in next step the authors would like to ask= for WG last call on this draft. Best regards, Jie --_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927336BF629nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

 

Here is the status update of dr= aft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb:

 

The latest version v-03 was sub= mitted in April, which only has some editorial changes.

 

Since this draft becomes stable= , in next step the authors would like to ask for WG last call on this draft= .

 

 

Best regards,=

Jie

 

--_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927336BF629nkgeml512mbxchi_-- From nobody Mon Jul 14 00:32:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A811A0339 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:32:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kd26CTcQSvI7 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41AAD1A0337 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKA00574; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:32:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.38) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:32:31 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.13]) by SZXEMA406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:32:25 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Status of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-00 and draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-00 Thread-Index: Ac+fNcD/UKVKetoPT0CJgg49LTlYwA== Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:32:24 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B470F5E59SZXEMA512MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/rcWJSwQBrr4ekQIfuF0Rn3mCYq4 Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [CCAMP] Status of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-00 and draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-00 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:32:41 -0000 --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B470F5E59SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, CCAMPers, We do not plan to present the following two drafts, which are recently adop= ted as WG drafts. A brief summary of the (potential) open issues pertaining= to these drafts are provided below: 1) draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-00 Open issue: there are discussions in the list about supporting concatenatio= n of multiple frequency slots, which might require update to this draft. We= will follow the framework or label draft update once it is more stable and= provide a solution accordingly. 2) draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-00 Open issue: update the "Max Width" from 8-bit to 16-bit in Port Label R= estriction sub-TLV (confirmed and will be updated in the next version) Using this chance, I would like to request your review of these two drafts.= If you have any further comments, please send the list or us, so we can al= so address them together in the next version. Regards, Xian (on behalf of all authors and contributors) --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B470F5E59SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, CCAMPers,

 

We= do not plan to present the following two drafts, which are recently adopte= d as WG drafts. A brief summary of the (potential) open issues pertaining t= o these drafts are provided below:

 

1= )   &= nbsp;  d= raft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-00

Op= en issue: there are discussions in the list about supporting concatenation = of multiple frequency slots, which might require update to this draft. We w= ill follow the framework or label draft update once it is more stable and provide a solution accordingly.

 

2= )   &= nbsp;  draf= t-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-00=

    Open issue: = update the “Max Width” from 8-bit to 16-bit in Port Label Restriction sub-TLV (confirmed and w= ill be updated in the next version)

 

Us= ing this chance, I would like to request your review of these two drafts. I= f you have any further comments, please send the list or us, so we can also= address them together in the next version.

 

Re= gards,

Xi= an (on behalf of all authors and contributors)

--_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B470F5E59SZXEMA512MBSchi_-- From nobody Mon Jul 14 02:25:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3241D1A00F1 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I_ed35G37htu for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A931A0070 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id at20so3032854iec.36 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=kCXtE1UOlygbDkHdiSMs/5ng/F5kDCIX6Iw9PWUd+iI=; b=RlBAHgnE4wu42MFH2MRNo8dbBE0HsH/4Hyu11UBAUapzwqfyxf95z8dzUZGsR0k15/ O/GBqGl1/UA7G9yWA7hpFIQ6WDxOAa8JudlSfqj4WErdo5u6hZD0g9tM5ZEwOgI4EkfX 3752Q8G4rtkIWaBIadtobM4CqaojuLXslBCjhKql0NwdAOdZUk9TocZcNvtlO5R7kZET wRTKrRKNR36M44uqkdXjN6tjyjpG39E5YcJnVF/jf7B7ERsyrbIFilCUcgaHYJRtyC7Q ZetEydi/RVbNWKQTTuTUgvJxqdngxNpRfnaDmvlLo75/WHh3XWQttNKslNeBNnQMmWnz 5dEg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.141.199 with SMTP id rq7mr23335341igb.37.1405329913137; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.132.67 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:55:13 +0530 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: ccamp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/cKSHe9U3GPWMyUNpqzA4bBo7RdY Subject: [CCAMP] Status of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:25:15 -0000 Hi All, ID: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02 Title: Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) An update was made this month with some editorial changes. Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-01&url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02 This document is a companion document to PCE WG's draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-05 and we aim to progress them together. [Which is awaiting an IRO implementation survey (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03793.html)]. Further comments/reviews are most welcome. Regards, Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors) From nobody Mon Jul 14 08:08:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA091A058E for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 yXjSrJEmQZ0T for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E191A04B9 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so2123172wgh.34 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3KaCpd7HVX6aTk0mcODroKXSU/gIhwEHKQx3gmj8n/Q=; b=cz2UfzPDIb0exqfQfGmHFM2wPNUiumvi3W8eSF9ux91K1raoJzcyF8WZ8Cj2i5alLU l8i0rX/yBNs0q0DFRXPvf8J6MhU5hI5/c+bewGUMt6E3/iK8ecVdYkaspzcha/97WTwY hc67GS5esqVLVE3SQm+F+ZTMgRO0WaLePbck1tMULb30eQz6I2fQ0MSQPzuR3xIsjThV 1ic2G5CB0UqzXVTRiSEdmiB3spC0EAUJihFujeodHwX/jnVnNGcphW92UrLw8Umhz1zd 7gY+3DO8ssQTuCkGK6SS10ShrJ67X+DDJB36jsv53VJ4FKecwn/kRJonqZCtYEh4A5rZ U/KA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.95.136 with SMTP id dk8mr25128214wib.8.1405350531033; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.22.6 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:08:50 -0400 Message-ID: From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444eb4b2ff27204fe28ab4c Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NUBCFDDIGa3Bi5MEO7ZeNYeeaZ4 Subject: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:08:54 -0000 --f46d0444eb4b2ff27204fe28ab4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 CCAMPers, Hi! We published a new version of this draft earlier this month. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label-03.txt . We have tried to accommodate all the suggestions/requests that have been made so far(except for the one regarding "longer labels" - this would be added in due course of time). We have also re-arranged some of the sections for better readability. Please do give this new version a read and let us know if there are any new concerns/issues. Regards, -Pavan (On behalf of the authors) --f46d0444eb4b2ff27204fe28ab4c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CCAMPers, Hi!

We published a= new version of this draft earlier this month.

We have tried to accommodate all the suggestions/reques= ts that have been made so far(except for the one regarding "longer lab= els" - this would be added in due course of time). We have also re-arr= anged some of the sections for better readability. Please do give this new = version a read and let us know if there are any new concerns/issues.

Regards,
-Pavan
(On behalf of the a= uthors)
--f46d0444eb4b2ff27204fe28ab4c-- From nobody Mon Jul 14 11:15:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186111A0031 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:15:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 SPG386cHJjqe for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0142.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 041B51A0016 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB044.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.980.8; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:57 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.149]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.78]) with mapi id 15.00.0980.000; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:57 +0000 From: Gert Grammel To: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" , "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" , "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpwADT8aQAA0Vs4MA== Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02723F29C4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(377454003)(199002)(164054003)(83072002)(81542001)(81342001)(15975445006)(74316001)(50986999)(76482001)(86362001)(19580395003)(17760045003)(46102001)(33646001)(107886001)(16236675004)(19617315012)(74662001)(74502001)(21056001)(92566001)(19580405001)(66066001)(31966008)(83322001)(76576001)(2201001)(64706001)(20776003)(85852003)(80022001)(54356999)(19300405004)(99936001)(76176999)(19273905006)(77096002)(87936001)(95666004)(79102001)(77982001)(85306003)(4396001)(99286002)(101416001)(15202345003)(19627595001)(107046002)(2656002)(19625215002)(105586002)(99396002)(106356001)(108616002)(24736002)(16866105001)(16866085005); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB044; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/f77CkJQirL985iPyc0TAfh6Hl-k Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:15:11 -0000 --_004_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_" --_000_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Manuel, Overall it is difficult for the authors to grasp in what respect a G.698.2 = interface would differ from an optical interface in terms of supervision an= d configuration capabilities. Also link management is already around since = a while for a set of technologies. Application codes defined in G.698.2 are= link characteristics which should be discovered however there seem still t= o be some reluctance the way we looked at it. It would be great if we could= get substantial feedback on the list on how to supervise a G.698.2 interfa= ce should be supervised and monitored. Gert From: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:ggalimbe@cisco.com] Sent: 10 July 2014 09:11 To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; Gert Grammel; ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Hi Manuel, I absolutely agree. Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) power is fund= amental for trouble shooting. Best Regards, Gabriele [http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif] Gabriele Galimberti Technical Leader Cisco Photonics Srl Via Philips, 12 20900 - Monza (MI) Italy www.cisco.com/global/IT/ ggalimbe@cisco.com Phone :+39 039 2091462 Mobile :+39 335 7481947 Fax :+39 039 2092049 From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM To: Gert Grammel >, "ccam= p@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Hello CCAMPers, I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with th= ese both documents. The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2. Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link= case? Every transponder could be configured and maintained in the same m= anner. Thanks, Manuel From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-cc= amp-g-698-2-snmp-mib The authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-= 698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698= -2-snmp-mib/ Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like = to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We als= o work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q= 14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings. As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link M= anagement of G.698.2 compliant interfaces. ------------------------------------- Gert Grammel --_000_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Manuel,=

&n= bsp;

Overall= it is difficult for the authors to grasp in what respect a G.698.2 interfa= ce would differ from an optical interface in terms of supervision and confi= guration capabilities. Also link management is already around since a while for a set of technologies. Application cod= es defined in G.698.2 are link characteristics which should be discovered h= owever there seem still to be some reluctance the way we looked at it. It w= ould be great if we could get substantial feedback on the list on how to supervise a G.698.2 interface should be sup= ervised and monitored.

&n= bsp;

Gert

&n= bsp;

From: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:ggalimbe= @cisco.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 09:11
To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; Gert Grammel; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-g= alikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

Hi Manu= el, 

&n= bsp;

I absol= utely agree.  Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) power is fundam= ental for trouble shooting.

&n= bsp;

Best Re= gards, 

&n= bsp;

Gabriel= e

3D"http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif"<= o:p>

 

 

Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl

 

Via Phili= ps, 12

20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
w= ww.cisco.com/global/IT/

 

ggalimbe@cisco.com
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

&n= bsp;

From: "Man= uel.Paul@telekom.de" <Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Gert Grammel <ggramme= l@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.o= rg" <ccamp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-g= alikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

&n= bsp;

Hello C= CAMPers,

 <= /span>

I worke= d through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these bot= h documents.

The val= ues in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2.

Why sho= uld it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link case? =  Every transponder could be configured  and maintained in the sam= e manner.

Thanks,
Manuel

 <= /span>

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galik= unze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 =

The autho= rs of  https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib/

Put new v= ersions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We’d like to = collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also w= ork in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp me= etings.

 

As a remi= nder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link Management= of G.698.2 compliant interfaces.

------------------------= -------------

Gert= Grammel

 <= /span>

 =

--_000_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_-- --_004_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_ Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=1632; creation-date="Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:56 GMT"; modification-date="Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:56 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAG4AAABJCAIAAABTkIQiAAAGJ0lEQVR4nO2be0xTVxzHv30gcHk5 bRmKyMCJrhDsNi0xzldikE2dZr5mSEnm/poylxi3ZAuOkhhjspANZ0zUhT9GyNwMzoHDSHD4GEGI QGtGAQ10iEyg1a1Cy50tdH9cd7kqRVp+5WHO54/m9HDOl3M+nHvP6W2QeTweMCiQT/YAXhyYSjKY SjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjImQWXLnXvTOt8bE62yxtz2 XfnvNea2aZo/CsoJ/n0lVxsqG5sBLNcsmI75ozDRq1KYp/A6HfNHgW07ZDCVZDCVZARQpa+HkqnW 3lcCpdLXQ8lUa+8HgToM+XoomWrt/SBQq9LXQ8lUa+8HBCqn+wdBqvzxqpzuHwQJ88d7r/yooBhA ZWOz8cSX4x/NtM5n50oymEoymEoyxqty3euvia9jqafKCXS+H4x329m66g3xdSz1VDmBzveD8apc rlnwUji3eP6cMdZT5QQ63w8I7pXexjFi/SgXlE85E5DvKxP9hQThBTUp+aMgm/h/Nmm5c49qIUxK vjcmQeWLCjtXksFUkhHYbeevy5fF8tw1a8g7jqWZ32PwlYCodPN8x5Wrt4qL79fXO81NADhNctL2 bTqDwTM4KFMoANQZDMa8PADa3NxlBw8KlQBsLa2N3x7ruVwldnx5zdoVhlxOrRoxn7daAYSo1Unb t2kPfDojPExs1lVb13Wh3FJRaa+plqujI15dmJC+LvH9XarFiwIxa3qVbp5vOHnK+Mk+aaXT3HS3 PlEHeAAZgCf3useVgK2l9dLuD+011dKOFnPTss8OcFBJ828eOjRk7R1uZu29W5+YMjAgqmy7WFGz f7/w9wAwZO21W3uNNdW3z/2y9puvA7E86VU+5TFsiVbJhUntAIBM9mxHz+Bge0WF2DJOn6WMiATw oLFxBje81hpOnmr4/Au5sx8AgoLCNMlKLsx+o04a1VVbdyljvbRGro4W1DtMxt/2ZmeUlJCvTWKV TqvtdmGh+FZbcDQxPR2AvaPjkd2O/1ffiLgGeHvrLaGs2rhpdX6+cFE7rbbgmVHSfMGjXB2dmpMj zVeGhgJw87z5+yIxNmFPdvL2rQCazpRYTp2Ay+U0N7Wf/kFlMFDOnFxlR1WVw2QUytqCo7p9Hwtl cQmI98QRhhIaEqWeLZRt58uqDXnzVq+ak6abGR8vzf/3TwsABAWl5uQ8ne/xAOjv6bEcPybUJ+zJ Xpv/lTIkBMDM5BR338POou8BWCoqddQqiQ9Dfd3dYjll1y7fhqJQxL79jvjWcvzYtZ07ft28pfmn M9J8t9MJQMlxI+TLZAAc3T1ihSZLL3gEwKlVSZmZCAoCwHfTf/UWwHOlcLn5xNylb264XqvauEms cZiM13buaLtYQZIfUIhVRsTEiOW28nJfu8sUitg03ZZzP2+4XqvNzRXr20vLPIODQr6S4wC4nU5v +cFRUWK560K50BHAo35He2kZXC4AyshIX8f2XIhVqlNTw5ZohXLD4cNtFyucVpvTarO1tHbV1gEQ JzYCHo+b5908LwNi03S63Fxxebr7Hg4NDQn5wa8kAIDL9Wy+m+cBRM6bF6fPEjoa8/JaSs46rbZ/ OjqMhYWdxY+3o+gVb9FOHOTbjmrxooVbNhtNRgAOk/FSxnpBx0BnZ2hc3HtlpR7vm/ig2327tOzu latRi5IA4MF92/myx6OMiJTL5cP55ia4XA6TsUqvn5WWJuZnFBYqQ0JmhIct2f2BsL0AuLZzx83l KwDYb9QJSzI4IVGTpaedOAJxrkzZm32/3SLORNQRGhc33MjL46g+c5O4+YpwmmRNll7c+oX8jpKz cmf/kLV3xPyYlSu1BUfF4630VBuckKg7ciQ2Tefv/LxCr5JTq1bn5/+xdKnl9I/SOUTMj4eXJSlU yuVyzJr91I/i9FlJmZnSmUvz/zaZhDPmEBceMT9e3IjkCsWyvXsiYmKai4qGl3ZU1Jx3NydlZi5Y n0412SdmEdDnlX48SpB2eW6vKfU4gz36JYM9rySDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSD qSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSTjP8P5+2z4huMfAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC --_004_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_-- From nobody Mon Jul 14 20:59:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EC71B2807 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:59:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ENLsn70-wz3p for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FFD11B27F9 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKA87386; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 03:59:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:59:04 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.7]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:59:01 +0800 From: Zhenghaomian To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHPl1bsrqto73xN8ky7I2Al852uK5ugkl5Q Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 03:59:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140704070932.2592.11281.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140704070932.2592.11281.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.53.113] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/PGPJLY-eq5j0a66I4EpI6BOKh0Y Subject: [CCAMP] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24g?= =?utf-8?q?for_draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-01=2Etxt?= X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 03:59:08 -0000 RGVhciBDQ0FNUGVycywNCg0KV2UgaGF2ZSB1cGRhdGUgdGhlIHJlc291cmNlIHNoYXJpbmcgc2ln bmFsIHByb2NlZHVyZSBkcmFmdCwgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsIGR1cmluZyBMU1Ag c2V0dXAvdGVhcmRvd24gaW4gY2lyY3VpdCBuZXR3b3JrLiANCkF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC16aGFuZy1jY2FtcC1nbXBscy1yZXNv dXJjZS1zaGFyaW5nLXByb2MtMDENCg0KSW4gdGhpcyB2ZXJzaW9uIHdlIHNwZWNpZnkgdGhlIGlu dGVycnVwdGlvbiBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHByb2NlZHVyZSwgYW5kIGNsYXJpZnkgdGhlIHNjb3BlIHJl bGF0aW9uc2hpcCB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nIGRyYWZ0KHMpLCB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFyZSBoaWdo bHkgd2VsY29tZWQsIHRoYW5rcyBhIGxvdC4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMsDQpIYW9taWFuDQoNCi0t LS0t6YKu5Lu25Y6f5Lu2LS0tLS0NCuWPkeS7tuS6ujogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3Jn IFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXSANCuWPkemAgeaXtumXtDogMjAxNOW5 tDfmnIg05pelIDE1OjEwDQrmlLbku7bkuro6IFBhd2VsIEJyem96b3dza2k7IFpoZW5naGFvbWlh bjsgUGF3ZWwgQnJ6b3pvd3NraTsgWmhhbmd4aWFuIChYaWFuKTsgWmhhbmd4aWFuIChYaWFuKTsg WmhlbmdoYW9taWFuDQrkuLvpopg6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQt emhhbmctY2NhbXAtZ21wbHMtcmVzb3VyY2Utc2hhcmluZy1wcm9jLTAxLnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3 IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC16aGFuZy1jY2FtcC1nbXBscy1yZXNvdXJjZS1zaGFyaW5n LXByb2MtMDEudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IEhhb21pYW4g WmhlbmcgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpOYW1lOgkJZHJhZnQt emhhbmctY2NhbXAtZ21wbHMtcmVzb3VyY2Utc2hhcmluZy1wcm9jDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDENClRp dGxlOgkJUmVzb3VyY2UgUmVzZXJWYXRpb24gUHJvdG9jb2wtVHJhZmZpYyBFbmdpbmVlcmluZyAo UlNWUC1URSkgU2lnbmFsaW5nIFByb2NlZHVyZSBmb3IgUmVzb3VyY2UgU2hhcmluZy1iYXNlZCBM U1AgU2V0dXAvVGVhcmRvd24NCkRvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTQtMDctMDMNCkdyb3VwOgkJSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpQYWdlczoJCTEyDQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtemhhbmctY2NhbXAtZ21wbHMtcmVzb3Vy Y2Utc2hhcmluZy1wcm9jLTAxLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNr ZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLWNjYW1wLWdtcGxzLXJlc291cmNlLXNoYXJpbmct cHJvYy8NCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC16 aGFuZy1jY2FtcC1nbXBscy1yZXNvdXJjZS1zaGFyaW5nLXByb2MtMDENCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAg ICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC16aGFuZy1jY2FtcC1nbXBs cy1yZXNvdXJjZS1zaGFyaW5nLXByb2MtMDENCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBHZW5lcmFsaXplZCBN dWx0aXByb3RvY29sIExhYmVsIFN3aXRjaGluZyAoR01QTFMpIGRlZmluZXMgYSBzZXQgb2YNCiAg IHByb3RvY29scyBmb3IgdGhlIGNyZWF0aW9uIG9mIExhYmVsIFN3aXRjaGVkIFBhdGhzIChMU1Bz KSBpbiB2YXJpb3VzDQogICBzd2l0Y2hpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLiBJdCBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCBm b3IgZGlmZmVyZW50IHR5cGVzIG9mDQogICBzd2l0Y2hpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLg0KDQogICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGNvbXBsaW1lbnRzIGV4aXN0aW5nIHN0YW5kYXJkcyBieSBleHBsYWluaW5n IHRoZQ0KICAgbWlzc2luZyBwaWVjZXMgb2YgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBSZXNvdXJj ZSBSZXNlclZhdGlvbg0KICAgUHJvdG9jb2wtVHJhZmZpYyBFbmdpbmVlcmluZyAoUlNWUC1URSkg c2lnbmFsaW5nIHByb2NlZHVyZSBpbiBzdXBwb3J0DQogICBvZiByZXNvdXJjZSBzaGFyaW5nLWJh c2VkIExTUCBzZXR1cC90ZWFyZG93biBpbiBHTVBMUy1jb250cm9sbGVkDQogICBjaXJjdWl0IG5l dHdvcmtzLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhh dCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlz c2lvbiB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0 IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From nobody Wed Jul 16 16:07:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E797F1A0397 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.562 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 xEd4OMLdud8j for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail2.infinera.com (unknown [204.128.141.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BE01A0392 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd2.infinera.com (10.100.103.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:06:36 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:06:35 -0700 From: Iftekhar Hussain To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , 'Fatai Zhang' Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHPkbtOik3pRsYRzEqOoXdENO8wOZuEU2GwgACH2wCAAGFJ4IACAeUAgBwxMhA= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:06:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <065601cf909d$a08e4fa0$e1aaeee0$@olddog.co.uk> <3cb78df56a2a4c278b8112fecd887796@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> <00bd01cf92f6$4765d5a0$d63180e0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00bd01cf92f6$4765d5a0$d63180e0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/jJYoIFcAFR2kWEs_23YJn5GG53Q Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:07:39 -0000 It is clear from your response that composite label portion is way beyond t= he ITU data plane definition as of today. Do you still have reasons for kee= ping the composite label portion in the draft? If not please take it off th= e WG document. Thanks, Iftekhar -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]=20 Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 10:28 AM To: Iftekhar Hussain; 'Fatai Zhang' Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01= .txt There is a certain extent to which this conversation has a gyratory nature = :-) Maybe a piece of information missing here is that CCAMP defines control pla= ne mechanisms to enable the operation of networks composed of data plane te= chnologies that have been specified in other SDOs or (only in the case of I= P and MPLS) in the IETF. CCAMP does not define data plane technologies. My intent in selecting the wording was to say "The ITU-T has currently defi= ned a data plane that allows contiguous slots to be treated as a single uni= t. This composite label format supports that mechanism. Future uses of this= composite label format are dependent on the ITU-T adding further data plan= e definitions, and those future uses must not be defined until the ITU-T ha= s provided those definitions."=20 I am pretty sure that that is what the document says. I'd be happy if someo= ne was able to show me where the document is misleading in that respect and= even happier if they suggested tighter wording. Returning to Iftekhar's questions: > 1. Are there any specific Latency/differential delay constraints to=20 > group adjacent slots? I should be surprised if adjacent slots (on the same fiber, remember) had d= ifferent latencies/delays. But Q6 would be able to give a definitive answer= . > 2. Are there any constraints/limit on how many of these slots are=20 > allowed to be grouped? I think that is a matter for the ITU-T. Again Q6, I think. I believe we have a mechanism here that would allow an arbitrary number of = slots to be grouped, but I also suspect that such grouping would not be arb= itrarily large in reality and I think that I have heard 8 and 16 talked abo= ut by hardware manufacturers. Beyond that, I think it becomes unmanageable = and it would be normal to select a smaller number of larger slots. > 3. Can the signal carried by these frequency slots must have the same=20 > modulation format or different? > > 4 What type of signals can be mapped to these frequency slots? I would expect that the purpose here is to create a larger slot for carryin= g payload and so the modulation format would be the same. But my expectatio= ns are not relevant! The text attempts to be clear that the encoding of sig= nal into slot is not a function of the label format. It might be a feature = in the signaling protocol (separate document) and could be described in the= framework draft (also separate document). Clearly, these types of question are best addressed to the ITU-T. Q6 and Q1= 2, I should think. > On the use case the composite label is addressing: >=20 > 5. What is the use case and what are the use case requirements? I would expect to see the use case detailed further in the framework draft. The use case is currently to support identifying a set of slots as single s= witchable unit, but not going any further than the data plane mechanisms de= fined in existing ITU-T Recommendations. > 6. Are there any implications of this grouping to route computations? Yes, I believe there are. I believe that the usage described in my text imp= lies that the group members are on the same fiber (which implies, I think, = that they are corouted). > 7. What type of client signals 100G, 200G, etc. this solution is addressi= ng. Why would a document that defines a label format be concerned about the ans= wer to this question? Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Iftekhar Hussain [mailto:IHussain@infinera.com] > Sent: 27 June 2014 19:04 > To: Fatai Zhang; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > If we are deferring these to ITU-T then we should hold of including=20 > this section in > the label WG document until all these has been clarified/understood. >=20 > Thanks, > Iftekhar > -----Original Message----- > From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:00 PM > To: Iftekhar Hussain; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > Hi Iftekhar, >=20 > I would like to address your comments if I can. >=20 > I am serious and I personally think that these should be addressed in=20 > ITU-T SG15. >=20 > I would be much happy to see if there is someone from CCAMP can answer=20 > these questions. >=20 >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Fatai >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Iftekhar Hussain [mailto:IHussain@infinera.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:58 AM > To: Fatai Zhang; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > Hi Fatai, >=20 > What do you mean by this? Seriously, I am surprised by your response. =20 > So when you don't want to address comments juts punt to ITU :) If that=20 > is the case I would > echo Malcom's concern. >=20 > Thanks, > Iftekhar >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:53 PM > To: Iftekhar Hussain; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > Hi Iftekhar, >=20 > For your first 4 questions, I don't think CCAMP experts can answer,=20 > and they should go to ITU-T, :-) >=20 >=20 >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Fatai >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Iftekhar=20 > Hussain > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:33 AM > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > Hi Adrian, >=20 > Thanks for the reply. Okay, so understood that ITU already have=20 > defined the data > plane requirements for grouping of flexible grid frequency slots. >=20 > So then is correct to state that the following is already defined in=20 > ITU data plane: >=20 > 1. Are there any specific Latency/differential delay constraints to=20 > group adjacent > slots? > 2. Are there any constraints/limit on how many of these slots are=20 > allowed to be > grouped? > 3. Can the signal carried by these frequency slots must have the same modulation > format or different? > 4 What type of signals can be mapped to these frequency slots? >=20 > On the use case the composite label is addressing: >=20 > 5. What is the use case and what are the use case requirements? > 6. Are there any implications of this grouping to route computations? > 7. What type of client signals 100G, 200G, etc. this solution is addressi= ng. >=20 > Suggest if you would like to keep this section in this document,=20 > address the above comments either via adding specific references to=20 > ITU spec and adding some further information in the intended use case. >=20 > Thanks, > Iftekhar >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:48 AM > To: Iftekhar Hussain > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt >=20 > Hi Iftekhar, >=20 > > Clarification for the composite label portion: > > So does this mean that: > > a) we are moving ahead with control plane solution ahead of ITU data=20 > > plane definitions ? > > b) or that the ITU data plane has already defined all the data plane=20 > > aspects > for the > > composite label use case? > > > > If it is case (b) - no issue. However, if it is case (a) shouldn't=20 > > we wait > for ITU > > before proposing solutions? >=20 > I thought the text was clear, but I would be happy to add more clarificat= ion. >=20 > We currently have: >=20 > Section 1 > This document relies on [G.694.1] for the definition of the optical > data plane and does not make any updates to the work of the ITU-T in > that regard. >=20 > Section 2.1 > The slots in the set could potentially be contiguous or non- > contiguous (as allowed by the definitions of the data plane) and > could be signaled as a single LSP or constructed from a group of > LSPs. > --- Maybe the parentheses are not clear and should say "(only as > allowed...." >=20 > Section 4.3 > At the time of writing [G.694.1] only supports only groupings of > adjacent slots (i.e., without intervening unused slots that could be > used for other purposes) of identical width (same value of m), and > the component slots must be in increasing order of frequency (i.e., > increasing order of the value n). The mechanism defined here MUST > NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms > are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T. >=20 > So... > Case b) >=20 > > I disagree with the assertion "more formal discussion of media=20 > > channels and network media channels and their arrangement for=20 > > inverse multiplexing belongs in the framework" . I believe this=20 > > document should elaborate on the use case > for > > which the solution is being proposed. >=20 > I would be happy to be guided by the WG and see proposed text.=20 > Personally I have nothing to add here, but if you have then please show i= t to us. >=20 > Maybe it would also help to say why you think this explanation should=20 > go in this > document (which is not the first in the series) rather than in the=20 > more general > discussion document that is the framework. I note that the framework=20 > already goes into some considerable detail about what media channels=20 > and network media channels are in the context of flexigrid. >=20 > Ciao, > Adrian >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Fri Jul 18 07:40:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF2B1ABB2B for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 gpfiFMDHZGuY for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (smtptc.telefonica.com [195.76.34.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4494F1A0AEE for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtptc.telefonica.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D506019B; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:40:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP111.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtptc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01E0460185; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:40:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.92.6.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:40:37 +0200 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) by AMSPR06MB278.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.19.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.985.8; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:40:36 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) by AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:40:35 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.8]) by AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.8]) with mapi id 15.00.0990.007; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:40:35 +0000 From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS To: Lou Berger , "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04 Thread-Index: AQHPaj7dzaJI5VeDtEunq9KK0f/wRpumeYQA Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <536AAB57.2090403@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <536AAB57.2090403@labn.net> Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [195.235.92.26] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02760F0D1C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(37854004)(51704005)(479174003)(189002)(199002)(51914003)(74662001)(74502001)(31966008)(36756003)(81342001)(107046002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83322001)(21056001)(15975445006)(81542001)(83506001)(92726001)(79102001)(101416001)(76482001)(77982001)(92566001)(83072002)(85852003)(99396002)(54356999)(76176999)(95666004)(50986999)(106356001)(105586002)(106116001)(85306003)(77096002)(4396001)(20776003)(80022001)(66066001)(64706001)(86362001)(2656002)(87936001)(15202345003)(46102001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB104; H:AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <149B1DD3F75B524CBEB8389204982EC9@eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-MML: No Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/n8PKJsAaNOxbxMAMsmEuJCAgZ0s Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:40:45 -0000 Hi Lou, Lots of thanks for the revision made to the SRLG collection draft. We have recently posted a new version addressing the comments menti= oned in your review, and some additional comments. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-coll= ect/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: Http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-co= llect-05 There are no idnits in the new version, as can be checked in http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=3Dhttp://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccam= p- rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.txt The main changes are: * No idnits * Replace head with ingress * Replace tail with egress * Section 3 changed to Encodings * Added Reserved field in section 3.2 * Added length in fields in section 3.2 * Rewording of text at beginning of SRLG Collection procedure. * sets to MUST set. * which can be carried to which MAY be carried * if to when in specific examples * some more wording changes * "Section 5.3 Compatibility=B2 added * References fixed * RRO ordering discussed * added RFC5420 as a normative reference * References in normative /informative Authors believe most of the comments have been addressed. Best Regards, =D3scar & draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 authors. El 07/05/14 23:53, "Lou Berger" escribi=F3: >Hi, > Here are some primarily editorial suggested changes to / comments on >draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04. Please use/respond as you >see appropriate. > >- The draft has a bunch of idnits issues which need to be fixed > see >http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=3Dhttp://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-cca= mp >-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04.txt > (I'll use line numbers from this URL below.) > >- I suggest, in the whole document > s/head/ingress > s/tail/egress > >- Section 3 title: "RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding)" > The whole document is an RSVP-TE Extensions, so this isn't a very > useful section heading. How about just calling the "Encodings" > >- Section 3.2 > - Each field should have its length defined > - The reserved field needs to be defined > >Section 4.1 > >- lines 179-181: > Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by > adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path > message. > > - Given this is defined in RFC209, how about: > > Per RFC 3209, an ingress initiates the recording of the route > information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message. > >- There are places where the section is light on 2119 language: > - line 181: s/it sets/it MUST set > - line 182: s/which can be carried/which MAY be carried > >- lines 183/4: Given you are describing specific cases, s/if/when in the > following: > > either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is > mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is > >- drop "is" in "... Collection Flag is set" (lines 188 and 196) > >- you use "should not" in lower case in a few spots in this section. > While I think your usage *is* correct, my experience is that someone > (probably in the IESG) will tell you that these need to be in upper > case at some point. Of course, they'll be wrong, and this will have > to be explained. I suggest avoiding 2119 language in lower case where > easily avoided. How about s/should not be/is not to be > >- Line 200: " the SRLG sub-object(s) in the Path RRO." > How about "any SRLG sub-object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding > outgoing Path message." > >- Line 202: s/If/When the Collection Flag is set and > >- Line 203/4: > OLD > processing node SHOULD add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry >the > local SRLG information. > NEW > processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined > below, to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. > >- Line 208: s/forwarding/processing > >- line 210: > OLD > node can get the SRLG information from the RRO > NEW > node receives SRLG information in the RRO > >- Lines 212-215 - this needs to be rephrased into language with which an > implementation may conform. How about something like: > > Per RFC 3209, when issuing a Resv message for a Path message which > contains an RRO an egress node initiates the RRO process by adding > an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The processing for RROs > contain in Resv messages then mirrors that of the Path messages. > >- Line 224: s/must not/MUST NOT > >- Lines 225-7 > OLD > Otherwise, if local policy allows to provide the SRLG > information, it MUST add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the > SRLG information in the upstream direction. > New > When local policy allows recording SRLG > information, the node SHOULD add SRLG information, as defined below, > to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Resv message. > >- Lines 246-250. I don't think such informative text belongs in this > section. I also think it's redundant with the last paragraph of > section 1 so suggest dropping it altogether. > >- The section is missing handling of RRO to big. Perhaps add it at ~line > 330. > >Section 4.2 > - Line 260: s/need not/SHOULD NOT > >Section 4.3 Compatibility (?) >- Need a section covering what happens when an existing implementation > sees a flag or SO defined in this document. (Remember, you can't > specify their behavior, just say what they should be expected to do > based on current RFCs and the objects defined in this document.) > >- Section 5 > The section doesn't cover the possibility of SRLGs being > mapped/changed from/to internal to/from neighbor SRLG values. > >- Section 6 > Section 5 implies there is a policy decision to be made at border > nodes. It seems to me that the security related considerations of this > policy decision should be covered in the document. Either in this > section or in section 5, in which case this section should point to > that discussion. > >- Section 9 > The references need to be split into informative and normative > references. For example, all but the first two references look > informative to me. > >That's it, >Lou > > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o= copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislaci= =F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo = comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this co= mmunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission = in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you h= ave received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, div= ulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o pode estar proibida em virtude= da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe = que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destru= i=E7=E3o From nobody Fri Jul 18 13:11:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95E31B2A69 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:11:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 YLe7DzMbrVoa for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC61B1B2A67 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) with ESMTP id f4f79c35.2b1fcb4b1940.1143184.00-2444.3210753.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:10:55 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53c97f4f18014396-c91895768acb4afecb957eb96a9ec1372214b515 Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 32f79c35.0.1142352.00-2372.3208442.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:10:13 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53c97f251ea60eda-46cba2ea632d9d64afde193d009c1cd8e47ca43b Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6IKACeo010136; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:10:13 -0400 Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6IKA2s6009908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:10:07 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.82]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:09:46 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.9]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:09:46 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: Gert Grammel , "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" , "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" , "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpwADT8aQAA0Vs4MADNIdcw Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:09:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.209] Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public, General SSNFP Patterns II X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Tf4hQ2sh c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=H3iOxsc2R5wA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=jhmz5UIrLHEA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=OUXY8nFuAAAA:8 a=JiJVGvLU_ebjdW6u] X-AnalysisOut: [AcYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=gUn9MpX-c_cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:] X-AnalysisOut: [10 a=p3EP0m9KMXkA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=peF9eE_zjQwA:10 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=YW0Io7EaZ3zhjENY:21 a=UEI8QimJ87N5uAdl:21 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:] X-AnalysisOut: [8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=4vgIikcKAAAA:8 a=DcnvcS5-yquDsFeAk4oA] X-AnalysisOut: [:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=ojWHkEdhfyMA:10 a=uf5W-bUQJFWA-vGR:21 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=RzCmTiyF194HY9VP:21 a=7pr6eGljs0JSVRnx:21 a=eS-SIszKxxoeb] X-AnalysisOut: [kHINWQA:9 a=HXjIzolwW10A:10 a=IkHgBtt53EAdg95B:18] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/9GlSRXvGcn_s9S-CMLiHoRWSziI Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:11:01 -0000 --_004_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_" --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Seeing the lack of discussion, I'll repeat some of the items which I noted = from previous meetings. As I noted at the last meeting, the documents have = improved to align better with ITU's data plane. Most of the remaining conce= rns were on non-alignment with ITU's data plane terminology and the recent = ITU work on managing G.698.2 and optical interfaces, e.g. G.872 (2012), G.8= 72 Amd. 1 (2013), and G.874.1 (2012: - Gert, I think your question below has been asked several times a= t ccamp - why specific for G.698.2, why not generalize this? In the lmp doc= ument, continue to name as "BL_", whereas the mibs document has been aligne= d with RFC3591, to say "OCh". - In the lmp draft, it says "BL_ApplicationCode". It has two param= eters, "single-channel" and "vendor transceiver". This implies that G.698.2= (or a "BL") allows for "vendor transceiver application codes". But G.698.2= only supports compatibility for the standard codes. This was the main conc= ern of the Q6 Rapporteurs on our WSON work and these drafts, that we infer = compatibility for the data plane when it is not appropriate. As they said, = the parameters are necessary, but not sufficient to guarantee compatibilit= y. - G.872 and G.874 use the generic term, Application Identifier (AI= ) and Central Frequency to characterize an OCh. Malcolm had mentioned this = at our previous meetings. AI covers both standard codes and vendor identifi= ers. Using these terms would cover your need to include proprietary (vendor= ) identifiers, and not infer these are equal to application codes. Also, "C= entral frequency" (vs. wavelength) is used in ITU's data plane work and in = other CCAMP work as a more precise term. By adopting "single channel" (vs. = BL) terminology and "OCh" and "AI", you will align better with ITU and othe= r CCAMP documents. And hopefully address much of the concern on how you are= managing/modelling these interfaces. - RFC3591 has monitoring mibs for power and read capability of "cu= rrent input power". So why introduce "BL" specific mibs for this monitoring= ? These can be referenced from RFC3591 or as extensions to RFC3591 if the n= aming doesn't match. - The only parameter missing is setting the output power? I don't = think it is supported though by G.874.1? Have the authors contributed to IT= U-T to request it be added? Hopefully this helps- Deborah From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:15 PM To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; ccamp@iet= f.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Manuel, Overall it is difficult for the authors to grasp in what respect a G.698.2 = interface would differ from an optical interface in terms of supervision an= d configuration capabilities. Also link management is already around since = a while for a set of technologies. Application codes defined in G.698.2 are= link characteristics which should be discovered however there seem still t= o be some reluctance the way we looked at it. It would be great if we could= get substantial feedback on the list on how to supervise a G.698.2 interfa= ce should be supervised and monitored. Gert From: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:ggalimbe@cisco.com] Sent: 10 July 2014 09:11 To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; Gert Grammel; cc= amp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Hi Manuel, I absolutely agree. Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) power is fund= amental for trouble shooting. Best Regards, Gabriele [http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif] Gabriele Galimberti Technical Leader Cisco Photonics Srl Via Philips, 12 20900 - Monza (MI) Italy www.cisco.com/global/IT/ ggalimbe@cisco.com Phone :+39 039 2091462 Mobile :+39 335 7481947 Fax :+39 039 2092049 From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM To: Gert Grammel >, "ccam= p@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunz= e-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib Hello CCAMPers, I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with th= ese both documents. The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2. Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link= case? Every transponder could be configured and maintained in the same m= anner. Thanks, Manuel From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-cc= amp-g-698-2-snmp-mib The authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-= 698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698= -2-snmp-mib/ Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like = to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We als= o work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q= 14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings. As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link M= anagement of G.698.2 compliant interfaces. ------------------------------------- Gert Grammel --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

Seeing the lack of discussion, I’ll repeat som= e of the items which I noted from previous meetings. As I noted at the last= meeting, the documents have improved to align better with ITU’s data= plane. Most of the remaining concerns were on non-alignment with ITU’s data plane terminology and the recent ITU w= ork on managing G.698.2 and optical interfaces, e.g. G.872 (2012), G.872 Am= d. 1 (2013), and G.874.1 (2012:

 

-     &= nbsp;    Gert, I think your question below has been asked se= veral times at ccamp – why specific for G.698.2, why not generalize t= his? In the lmp document, continue to name as “BL_”, whereas th= e mibs document has been aligned with RFC3591, to say “OCh”.

-     &= nbsp;    In the lmp draft, it says “BL_ApplicationCode= ”. It has two parameters, “single-channel” and “ven= dor transceiver”. This implies that G.698.2 (or a “BL”) a= llows for “vendor transceiver application codes”. But G.698.2 o= nly supports compatibility for the standard codes. This was the main concern of the Q6 Rapporteurs on= our WSON work and these drafts, that we infer compatibility for the data p= lane when it is not appropriate. As they said, the parameters are necessary= ,  but not sufficient to guarantee compatibility.

-     &= nbsp;    G.872 and G.874 use the generic term, Application I= dentifier (AI) and Central Frequency to characterize an OCh. Malcolm had me= ntioned this at our previous meetings. AI covers both standard codes and ve= ndor identifiers. Using these terms would cover your need to include proprietary (vendor) identifiers, and not= infer these are equal to application codes. Also, “Central frequency= ” (vs. wavelength) is used in ITU’s data plane work and in othe= r CCAMP work as a more precise term. By adopting “single channel” (vs. BL) terminology and “OCh” and “AI= 221;, you will align better with ITU and other CCAMP documents. And hopeful= ly address much of the concern on how you are managing/modelling these inte= rfaces.

-     &= nbsp;    RFC3591 has monitoring mibs for power and read capa= bility of “current input power”. So why introduce “BLR= 21; specific mibs for this monitoring? These can be referenced from RFC3591= or as extensions to RFC3591 if the naming doesn’t match.<= /p>

-     &= nbsp;    The only parameter missing is setting the output po= wer? I don’t think it is supported though by G.874.1? Have the author= s contributed to ITU-T to request it be added?

 

Hopefully this helps-

Deborah

 

From: CCAMP [m= ailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:15 PM
To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; cc= amp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-g= alikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

Manuel,

 

Overall it is difficul= t for the authors to grasp in what respect a G.698.2 interface would differ= from an optical interface in terms of supervision and configuration capabi= lities. Also link management is already around since a while for a set of technologies. Application codes defined = in G.698.2 are link characteristics which should be discovered however ther= e seem still to be some reluctance the way we looked at it. It would be gre= at if we could get substantial feedback on the list on how to supervise a G.698.2 interface should be supervised a= nd monitored.

 

Gert=

 

From: Gabriele= Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:= ggalimbe@cisco.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 09:11
To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de= ; Gert Grammel; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-g= alikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

Hi Manuel, 

 

I absolutely agree.  Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) pow= er is fundamental for trouble shooting.

 

Best Regards, 

 

Gabriele

3D"http://www.cisco.com/swa/=

 

 

Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl

 

Via Phili= ps, 12

20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
w= ww.cisco.com/global/IT/

 

ggalimbe@cisco.com
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" <Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Gert Grammel <ggramme= l@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.o= rg" <ccamp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-g= alikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

 

Hello CCAMPers,=

 

I worked through the l= ast ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these both documents.

The values in the draf= ts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2.

Why should it not be p= ossible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link case?  Every tra= nsponder could be configured  and maintained in the same manner.

Thanks,
Manuel

 

From: CCAMP [mailto:cca= mp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galik= unze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib<= o:p>

 <= /o:p>

The authors of  htt= ps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib/

Put new versions out and= would encourage discussion on the list. We’d like to collect input b= efore the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also work in parallel= on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.

 

As a reminder: the draft= s define parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 com= pliant interfaces.

------------= -------------------------

Gert Grammel

 

 <= /o:p>

--_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_-- --_004_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=1632; creation-date="Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:09:46 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:09:46 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAG4AAABJCAIAAABTkIQiAAAGJ0lEQVR4nO2be0xTVxzHv30gcHk5 bRmKyMCJrhDsNi0xzldikE2dZr5mSEnm/poylxi3ZAuOkhhjspANZ0zUhT9GyNwMzoHDSHD4GEGI QGtGAQ10iEyg1a1Cy50tdH9cd7kqRVp+5WHO54/m9HDOl3M+nHvP6W2QeTweMCiQT/YAXhyYSjKY SjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjKYSjImQWXLnXvTOt8bE62yxtz2 XfnvNea2aZo/CsoJ/n0lVxsqG5sBLNcsmI75ozDRq1KYp/A6HfNHgW07ZDCVZDCVZARQpa+HkqnW 3lcCpdLXQ8lUa+8HgToM+XoomWrt/SBQq9LXQ8lUa+8HBCqn+wdBqvzxqpzuHwQJ88d7r/yooBhA ZWOz8cSX4x/NtM5n50oymEoymEoyxqty3euvia9jqafKCXS+H4x329m66g3xdSz1VDmBzveD8apc rlnwUji3eP6cMdZT5QQ63w8I7pXexjFi/SgXlE85E5DvKxP9hQThBTUp+aMgm/h/Nmm5c49qIUxK vjcmQeWLCjtXksFUkhHYbeevy5fF8tw1a8g7jqWZ32PwlYCodPN8x5Wrt4qL79fXO81NADhNctL2 bTqDwTM4KFMoANQZDMa8PADa3NxlBw8KlQBsLa2N3x7ruVwldnx5zdoVhlxOrRoxn7daAYSo1Unb t2kPfDojPExs1lVb13Wh3FJRaa+plqujI15dmJC+LvH9XarFiwIxa3qVbp5vOHnK+Mk+aaXT3HS3 PlEHeAAZgCf3useVgK2l9dLuD+011dKOFnPTss8OcFBJ828eOjRk7R1uZu29W5+YMjAgqmy7WFGz f7/w9wAwZO21W3uNNdW3z/2y9puvA7E86VU+5TFsiVbJhUntAIBM9mxHz+Bge0WF2DJOn6WMiATw oLFxBje81hpOnmr4/Au5sx8AgoLCNMlKLsx+o04a1VVbdyljvbRGro4W1DtMxt/2ZmeUlJCvTWKV TqvtdmGh+FZbcDQxPR2AvaPjkd2O/1ffiLgGeHvrLaGs2rhpdX6+cFE7rbbgmVHSfMGjXB2dmpMj zVeGhgJw87z5+yIxNmFPdvL2rQCazpRYTp2Ay+U0N7Wf/kFlMFDOnFxlR1WVw2QUytqCo7p9Hwtl cQmI98QRhhIaEqWeLZRt58uqDXnzVq+ak6abGR8vzf/3TwsABAWl5uQ8ne/xAOjv6bEcPybUJ+zJ Xpv/lTIkBMDM5BR338POou8BWCoqddQqiQ9Dfd3dYjll1y7fhqJQxL79jvjWcvzYtZ07ft28pfmn M9J8t9MJQMlxI+TLZAAc3T1ihSZLL3gEwKlVSZmZCAoCwHfTf/UWwHOlcLn5xNylb264XqvauEms cZiM13buaLtYQZIfUIhVRsTEiOW28nJfu8sUitg03ZZzP2+4XqvNzRXr20vLPIODQr6S4wC4nU5v +cFRUWK560K50BHAo35He2kZXC4AyshIX8f2XIhVqlNTw5ZohXLD4cNtFyucVpvTarO1tHbV1gEQ JzYCHo+b5908LwNi03S63Fxxebr7Hg4NDQn5wa8kAIDL9Wy+m+cBRM6bF6fPEjoa8/JaSs46rbZ/ OjqMhYWdxY+3o+gVb9FOHOTbjmrxooVbNhtNRgAOk/FSxnpBx0BnZ2hc3HtlpR7vm/ig2327tOzu latRi5IA4MF92/myx6OMiJTL5cP55ia4XA6TsUqvn5WWJuZnFBYqQ0JmhIct2f2BsL0AuLZzx83l KwDYb9QJSzI4IVGTpaedOAJxrkzZm32/3SLORNQRGhc33MjL46g+c5O4+YpwmmRNll7c+oX8jpKz cmf/kLV3xPyYlSu1BUfF4630VBuckKg7ciQ2Tefv/LxCr5JTq1bn5/+xdKnl9I/SOUTMj4eXJSlU yuVyzJr91I/i9FlJmZnSmUvz/zaZhDPmEBceMT9e3IjkCsWyvXsiYmKai4qGl3ZU1Jx3NydlZi5Y n0412SdmEdDnlX48SpB2eW6vKfU4gz36JYM9rySDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSSD qSSDqSSDqSSDqSSDqSTjP8P5+2z4huMfAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC --_004_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D1DCMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_-- From nobody Fri Jul 18 13:48:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E3A1A854B for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:48:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 DlQryVWUv7_j for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE4121A0065 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 22889c35.0.2472350.00-2376.6940542.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:48:34 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53c988226c4bbd84-16a7123096365cf25ce7060d217cb9f332522437 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6IKmXuW020550 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:48:33 -0400 Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6IKmNHe020429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:48:26 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.61]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:48:11 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.9]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.61]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:48:11 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF-90 CCAMP Agenda Thread-Index: Ac+iyZIua2JVBSgHQeGdNitE/kd3zw== Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:48:10 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.209] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D23BMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=YYkKEXtf c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=jhmz5UIrLHEA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP] X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=WnehBOnNZ-wHWWNEsqYA:9 a=Cj] X-AnalysisOut: [uIK1q_8ugA:10 a=8DFHeg8gzFUA:10 a=glBYq1bBD-MA:10 a=_W_S_7] X-AnalysisOut: [VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=cjh8W46Ov5fGW6Oo:21] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/lvlHDOvDfSfZSETbsRiybmC75cs Subject: [CCAMP] IETF-90 CCAMP Agenda X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:48:36 -0000 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D23BMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi CCAMP, The agenda has been revised. And depending on the timing on Monday, we may = have time to discuss slots scheduled for Wednesday. Or we may lack time for= Monday slots, and shift to Wednesday. Note, on Monday, we will discuss the WSON signaling draft which has been re= cently revised. This document is past LC and changes need to be reviewed by= the WG. See you in Toronto, Deborah and Lou --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D23BMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi CCAMP,
 
The agenda has been revised. And depending on the timing on Monday, we= may have time to discuss slots scheduled for Wednesday. Or we may lack tim= e for Monday slots, and shift to Wednesday.
 
Note, on Monday, we will discuss the WSON signaling draft which has be= en recently revised. This document is past LC and changes need to be review= ed by the WG.
 
See you in Toronto,
Deborah and Lou
 
 
 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB8D23BMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_-- From nobody Sun Jul 20 05:54:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F2B1B2BF4 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 HROm8bcaMSWP for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8B11B2BF3 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 05:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KCsEro023530; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:14 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3fb.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KCsChE023518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:13 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Iftekhar Hussain'" Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:16 +0100 Message-ID: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac+kGXH6Y94TWY5qRO6+Mbd8d/ZgZw== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20828.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.434-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--4.434-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: scwq2vQP8OE4HKI/yaqRm5YsKSXWWrsH1kqyrcMalqWsafcFLFlU1HG3 IDkkj7AX04ETjV9pxhvvvBX4k9Sv1zSeWUsjFFnmCPKPqEbU3ZOvFlDTfVnoWtUykPK1RFAoAQz qqP1wd4kjypnGhZoY9SU7PHkHmwcw6ouyw1YVSq++dJWHbg4ITmy2cg0DSaMwnWBUWlAKnBOJLk 17jMNaXT3fBuSFpmK+6woR/AxN3BgYGe03I+tEG54CIKY/Hg3AtOt1ofVlaoIc4jS1nsD4HfoLR 4+zsDTtY+LAcPqdSWfDv1ronYak5cAlkeF61lCKfRp4vylq4t/oPSyL9NYPma2BTGPyCw3B0MEP 74uTaDZ0DHHWbq+XBNfOEKezpsqtKZQ+KNzu5s+Hx/3593XRE+S+ZTuCPZ+tPifujgI13dqh071 fQj6NysC+ksT6a9fy Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8_vl_lQONUyq9UPS6ceqCsGpKSQ Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:54:26 -0000 > It is clear from your response that composite label portion is way beyond the ITU > data plane definition as of today. I'm sorry I have given you that impression. Sorrier still if the text in the I-D leaves you with that impression. It was my intention that this document defined a label that could be used for the limited form of concatenated slot that is currently defined by the ITU-T. It was also my intention that the document clearly and unequivocally states that the label is not for any undefined (by the ITU-T) data plane constructs. However, I wanted to ensure that the defined label is forward compatible. > Do you still have reasons for keeping the composite label > portion in the draft? If not please take it off the WG document. Well, it is a WG I-D so my reason, as editor, is governed by what the WG wants. I had formed the opinion, in the run up to WG adoption, that the WG supported this idea. And before I posted the revised I-D, I circulated the text on the list, received a couple of comments, and tweaked the text. I don't believe I heard anyone objecting to the idea at that time. Perhaps the chairs can help guide us to understand what the WG wants included in the document. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Mon Jul 21 08:36:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384911A02A5 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 7T_S5vC4KlMj for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69DDB1A00B8 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d1so4402791wiv.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=r7qWHMrVpAzcABhIHkzcRtcLXNHc2uxU/9kAiMqsd+A=; b=vKnXtpOE08jI/Y3aUOJSS2xUUaDthMpo34B/MvqJcNYGTvdL4LosoNaUry6q+GkGWt +qjQpipdpCmIKPMcv9CyJJNuDx3M7JYiOHdN4TExrrjNbwOYlojhQ0CEACMHEJujkiHr h7/uJtEPfboPCgwWr6f5TyfK02wMP6l3C74CbD6to5SxK7sC4HkcOWfFtT1rLeNSnT9s 6eaQCG46Qx6ZP380A4zsnmS6ed6COrYkQOqkfjsps94RMC49ODeEPkqub2edB4k3oejP hsa3othRKBMbeEFjFxJJMRfQmaurot51zbeP8JlBYzBk7bJuNUSCfh321W9Iu6BGqsj9 8NgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.109.71 with SMTP id hq7mr24618605wjb.114.1405956983061; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.138 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:36:23 -0400 Message-ID: From: Cyril Margaria To: CCAMP Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102e6e68b859c04feb5de0b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AJLhVlt46h80qRpBxlYlOUfKaoE Subject: [CCAMP] LSP attribute in ERO Update X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:36:29 -0000 --089e0102e6e68b859c04feb5de0b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear CCAMPers, We have updated the LSP attribute in ERO document ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro). The IANA section has been updated, we have addressed all the comments for this document. A review from the WG is appreciated, the solution being stable.. Best Regards. Cyril --089e0102e6e68b859c04feb5de0b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The IANA secti= on has been updated, we have addressed all the comments for this document.= =C2=A0
A review from the WG is appreciated, the solution being stable..
<= br>
Best Regards.
Cyril
--089e0102e6e68b859c04feb5de0b-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 12:49:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9961A03CC for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:48:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 YWT--URn5D9J for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6DA1A02FA for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHL54318; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:48:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:48:50 +0100 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.145]) by dfweml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:48:46 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: Lou Berger Thread-Topic: Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. Thread-Index: Ac+lHMTjNdPVabBdTpCimcZklavqjw== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:48:45 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.138.46] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9dfweml706chmchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/pACxDOprOALnUsxhS0MbO97K0E0 Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:48:56 -0000 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lou, Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in regard to "what happens wh= at wavelength assignment has failed"? Is this the correct statement? Thanks, Young --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Lou,

 

Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in reg= ard to “what happens what wavelength assignment has failed”? Is= this the correct statement?

 

Thanks,

Young

--_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9dfweml706chmchi_-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 12:52:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0AC1A0397 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 Tmcwp8hsKYJR for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A9F1A03C8 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:52:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3411; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1405972333; x=1407181933; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=vlZ0YPTDDQu1xSvrHsUEELsbFVr5/sBYO0bPNEv6VpM=; b=SbG84CuxKgSRuRgBmeMoxnQeSB/fG99xXWq+43tSnDWpFrydkuxxMicg e/omfC658oQDIstXbf27hq6VHriHa6dCi9xHfsZp8QZLMIL+h0VjZAk8w gFO3MVm7wafGyZ76a7GhurODI6bDR/XUAOLdb4dnxlfWmDKPQrtTtLxyG c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAFBuzVOtJV2P/2dsb2JhbABZgkdHUlcExm8BCYdFAYEfFnaEBAEBBAEBAWsLEAIBCAQ7BycLFBEBAQQOBYhCDb5wEwSPRwQHgy6BGAWbJZQvg0RsgUU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,703,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="341743850" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2014 19:52:12 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6LJqC6D021292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:52:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:52:11 -0500 From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" To: Leeyoung Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. Thread-Index: Ac+lHMTjNdPVabBdTpCimcZklavqjwAKma6A Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:52:11 +0000 Message-ID: <97679D9B-DAD3-4EBF-884C-F9E82B0A47A9@cisco.com> References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.110.50] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_97679D9BDAD34EBF884CF9E82B0A47A9ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/xIQabBNgG_FGVxOVO4D8SHuq_r4 Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:52:14 -0000 --_000_97679D9BDAD34EBF884CF9E82B0A47A9ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable and even more =93if a node cannot allocate the (physical, i.e. a regenerato= r block) resource, what happens?=94 correct? Cheers G On 21 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Leeyoung > wrote: Hi Lou, Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in regard to =93what happens = what wavelength assignment has failed=94? Is this the correct statement? Thanks, Young _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp --_000_97679D9BDAD34EBF884CF9E82B0A47A9ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <342905519240FF49AA09E8D9E0B962B2@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable and even more =93if a node cannot allocate the (physical, i.e. a regenerato= r block) resource, what happens?=94 

correct?

Cheers
G


On 21 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Lou,
 
Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in regard to =93what happens = what wavelength assignment has failed=94? Is this the correct statement?
 
Thanks,
Young
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cca= mp

--_000_97679D9BDAD34EBF884CF9E82B0A47A9ciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 13:01:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B88E1A03AE for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 IFmSvpTIsRAX for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360801A0280 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHL54884; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML704-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.141) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:01:33 +0100 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.145]) by dfweml704-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.218]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:01:23 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. Thread-Index: Ac+lHMTjNdPVabBdTpCimcZklavqjwAKma6AAApWcaA= Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FCF@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <97679D9B-DAD3-4EBF-884C-F9E82B0A47A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <97679D9B-DAD3-4EBF-884C-F9E82B0A47A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.138.46] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FCFdfweml706chmchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/tmJ5GP_76e3Tpv9fEmID_4zfag0 Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:01:46 -0000 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FCFdfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was not clear on the question I raised. With Giovanni's comment, let me r= ephrase the question I think Lou asked: What happens if a node cannot allocate the resources asked for (e.g., regen= eration block or wavelength, etc.)? Then would a PathErr Message with cause values (one for Regen Block and oth= er for wavelength) be sufficient? Young From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:giomarti@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:52 PM To: Leeyoung Cc: Lou Berger; ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. and even more "if a node cannot allocate the (physical, i.e. a regenerator = block) resource, what happens?" correct? Cheers G On 21 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Leeyoung > wrote: Hi Lou, Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in regard to "what happens wh= at wavelength assignment has failed"? Is this the correct statement? Thanks, Young _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FCFdfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was not clear on the qu= estion I raised. With Giovanni’s comment, let me rephrase the questio= n I think Lou asked:

 <= /p>

What happens if a node ca= nnot allocate the resources asked for (e.g., regeneration block or waveleng= th, etc.)?

 <= /p>

Then would a PathErr Mess= age with cause values (one for Regen Block and other for wavelength) be suf= ficient?

 <= /p>

Young

 <= /p>

From: Giovanni= Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:giomarti@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:52 PM
To: Leeyoung
Cc: Lou Berger; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA met= hod.

 

and even more “if a node cannot allocate the (= physical, i.e. a regenerator block) resource, what happens?” 

 

correct?

 

Cheers

G

 

 

On 21 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> wrote:



Hi Lou,

 

Would you be able to re-phrase what you= asked in regard to “what happens what wavelength assignment has fail= ed”? Is this the correct statement?

 

Thanks,

Young

______________________________________= _________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.o= rg
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp=

 

--_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FCFdfweml706chmchi_-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 13:40:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5041A041C for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:40:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 7uDMBRekGqry for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail1.infinera.com (outgoingmail1.infinera.com [204.128.141.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59BEF1A03FC for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:39:49 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:39:49 -0700 From: Khuzema Pithewan To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5A== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:39:48 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e37060b5f88a48a68da993b086725904svex13prd1infineracom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/iP83AjNOQXhujXiCojzVtJIQJP0 Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:40:09 -0000 --_000_e37060b5f88a48a68da993b086725904svex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Authors : It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify whic= h options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /crit= ique of options would help. For example : Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks= one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 shou= ld be used. Thanks Khuzema --_000_e37060b5f88a48a68da993b086725904svex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Authors :

 

It will be useful to have a recommendation section i= n draft to clarify which options can be used in what scenario. Some discuss= ion on comparison /critique of options would help.

 

For example :

 

Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used = resulting in crankbacks one after another. So if client layer cannot provid= e XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

 

Thanks

Khuzema

--_000_e37060b5f88a48a68da993b086725904svex13prd1infineracom_-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 13:56:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952C81A0444 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:56:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 GM8EnkBpvqCf for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BC4521A0385 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22584 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jul 2014 20:56:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2014 20:56:46 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id V8wg1o00v2SSUrH018wjKW; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:56:46 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=C4B6l2/+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=gMT3HLUeZkhfMhcTvfoA:9 a=0QeDsTIIyEYCjEgk:21 a=LYQkdismrhgHJUQL:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=wpLG9jU84LkeMx8TJMHZR8k1LMw4L7Zp593W5p1cko4=; b=EADRUMArmJJrCr9d78EWTvNkdn+ivw9kKF6q65Dxrh+h1hrH57/l1C9qKcBz1DBpVu0C0PcpG9/OXjZo3KWM5P+wKfyBRtCkxKei5sJLN47QgFa/jp3zVimFtHEjMfR9; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:39538 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X9KdU-0006ML-K8 for ccamp@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:56:40 -0600 Message-ID: <53CD7E91.8070009@labn.net> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:56:49 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CCAMP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/0OTSXwH6q_QzsABSO3ZYU6Joyoc Subject: [CCAMP] Raw minutes X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:56:50 -0000 All, The enclosed are the raw minutes from today -- they are quite rough! Please feel free to make changes you feel are appropriate to the etherpad at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/minutes (note, past revisions are saved and final minutes will be reviewed.) All input will be greatly appreciated! Lou (and Deborah) ================================= These are also available from the materials page: > > 0 - Combined with 1 > 1 - Agenda, Admin & WG Document Status > 2 - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling > 3 - draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > 4 - draft-dios-ccamp-control-models-customer-provider > 5 - draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity > 6 - draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect > 7 - draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label > 8 - Moving the overlay discussion forward > 9 - draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability & draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension > 10 - draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh > 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info > 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp > 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib > 14 - draft-zhang-ccamp-rsvpte-ber-measure > 15 - draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc > 16 - draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp > 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry > 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 > > Session 2014-07-21 1520-1650: Tudor 7/8 - Audio stream - ccamp chatroom > Session 2014-07-23 0900-1130: Territories - Audio stream - ccamp chatroom > > Agenda > CCAMP Agenda For IETF 90 > Version: > > First Session > MONDAY, July 21, 2014 > 1520-1650 Monday Afternoon Session II > Room: Tudor 7/8 (MM) > Presentation Start Time Duration Information > 0 15:20 10 Title: Administrivia & WG Status > Draft: No Agenda changes. > Presenter: Chairs > 1 15:30 10 Title: WG Document Status > Draft: > Presenter: - TE Metric Recording & SRLG Collection I-D Matthew: Code points documented have already been allocated by IANA for other I-Ds. Lou: More inclined to request they do not have early allocation and follow the IANA process Oscar: (as author) we already requested an early allocation. Lou: Lets discuss this issue during your presentation. Re: WG I-Ds not currently on agenda - What are the authors intentions? Rakesh Gandhi: Two months since the comments were made, but I have been in PTO, I will look to address them in the next few weeks. George: I need to synch with Zafar Lou: Please get with Zafar and ask him to provide an update to the list on when the draft might be updated > 2 15:40 10 Title: Post LC WSON Document Changes > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling > Presenter: Young Lee Lou: Implementors please review the document for changes. Are there volunteers willing to commit to a review by the end of August - 3 (including Authors.) I have some technical comments on the error processing and will send them to the list > 3 15:50 10 Title: Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > Presenter: TBD George: Server layer or control entity would control paths are created from the server layer. Igor: it may be dependent on time/day, the client may want to change (demand?) Oscar: Document is already 40 pages, might be worth splitting the document, maybe seperating terminology? Adrian: Inclusion of terminology was a request from chairs. Lou: I had made a request for seperate documents, but it seems this has not resonated with the authors. One or two documents is secondary, what is most important is to have terminology documented in one place. Adrian: Igor: Agree that it should be located in a single place. [Poll] How may read the document [Result] How many would support [Result] Who has reservations regarding the document [Result] We will take to the list. > 4 16:00 10 Title: Terminology and Models for Control of Traffic Engineered Networks with Provider-Customer Relationship > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dios-ccamp-control-models-customer-provider > Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez De Dios Fatai: The I-D list terminology/defintions but it does not prescribe which terms to use. Oscar: We compiled the terms, but it is up to the WG to decide which terms to use, something to discssion on the list. George: Historical purposes, re: the OIF UNI, was built around a commercial relationship between user and the network. We then stripped down the defintion to the essentials. Deborah: Do not spend too much effort/involved with terminology, we will clean up in the near future. Lou: Are there any portions of the document that could not be merged with TE interconnection I-D. Oscar: No reason why the document could noy be merged, the only reservation would be on the size of the document. George: A reason for having a terminology section in TE interconnection document is that terms have become fuzzy and may be used differently. Oscar's document brings some precision to the dicussion. Lou: Ok, I see the motivation for ... In summary, lets keep the document seperate but review the TE interconnec and see whats missing and report to the list. Oscar: > 5 16:10 10 Title: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity > Presenter: Zafar Ali/George Swallow Lou: Three methods defined in I-D do you expect an implementation to supprot all three? George: (Yes?) Scenario specific, it depends on the use. Infinera: Proposal uses crankback? George: as a means for last resort, but not preferred. Gert: George: Lou: New requirements in I-D, that seem to conflict with your description. George: > 6 16:20 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect > Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios > 7 16:30 10 Title: Network Assigned Upstream Label > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label > Presenter: Vishnu Pavan Beeram > 8 16:40 10 Title: Moving the overlay discussion forward > Draft: > Presenter: From nobody Tue Jul 22 04:38:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8461A0ACB for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:38:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 LU5_rpn5Q0lY for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A9B21A00E8 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25696 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jul 2014 11:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 11:38:26 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id VVeK1o0092SSUrH01VeNp2; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:38:25 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=vImR29pegokA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=LiKZIXnkkqPXklbvRosA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=tGgpuCvuCHc/8AVh/1qr9b/3Ekw26qJi2xYR/615lzc=; b=c3Zknhm6Xkjcn2r95nyRgd5BALwVBs2U1V/iHjjfOcPmlJ68Y8+z+YJCAy4Cs7EBqPoFVaKVuxwaMTTnIlEn2Vrow5RJoej/YLEMRFoEIMPV0c3/1ihmClmfldhefaCT; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:45824 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X9YOi-0006Ie-CA; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 05:38:20 -0600 Message-ID: <53CE4D36.7090505@labn.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:38:30 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leeyoung References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C02FA9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/EMUR6V-oITO3Z7gjenGkD9KlAec Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question you raised on failing to assing WA method. X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:38:30 -0000 Young, The specific comment was related to the final (and parallel) paragraphs in section 4.3 and 4.4. They both describe what is done on successful processing of the related sub-TLV but, unless I missed it, don't describe how a failure is to be handled. I some other nits that I'll send out as soon as I get the chance. (Alternatively, catch me in the hall and I'll review them with you.) Lou On 7/21/2014 3:48 PM, Leeyoung wrote: > > Hi Lou, > > Would you be able to re-phrase what you asked in regard to “what > happens what wavelength assignment has failed”? Is this the correct > statement? > > Thanks, > > Young > From nobody Tue Jul 22 08:19:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160FA1B2966 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I_r0ELvmcy4q for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (smtpjc.telefonica.com [81.47.204.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1F211B2949 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F891B8115; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:19:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP107.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpjc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD331B8113; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:19:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.92.6.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:19:36 +0200 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) by AMSPR06MB102.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:35 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.8]) by AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.8]) with mapi id 15.00.0990.007; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:35 +0000 From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS To: Lou Berger , DEBORAH A BRUNGARD Thread-Topic: Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 Thread-Index: AQHPpcBYz/8o3PGLdUe/8CbrviqD7g== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [31.133.144.161] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02801ACE41 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(37854004)(199002)(86362001)(79102001)(74502001)(92566001)(99396002)(64706001)(106116001)(4396001)(20776003)(95666004)(31966008)(15202345003)(92726001)(105586002)(15975445006)(21056001)(74662001)(19580395003)(101416001)(87936001)(83322001)(85306003)(81542001)(106356001)(83072002)(2656002)(46102001)(50986999)(16236675004)(54356999)(77096002)(85852003)(81342001)(66066001)(76482001)(83506001)(77982001)(107046002)(80022001)(229853001)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB102; H:AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFF3F9455CB65oscargonzalezdediostelefonicacom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-MML: No Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/U00E_MzuN1eU6C-MyMNgkCzkG28 Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:49 -0000 --_000_CFF3F9455CB65oscargonzalezdediostelefonicacom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear CCAMP WG Chairs, Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code P= oints defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the W= G draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-cc= amp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, it is requested to CCAMP WG chairs the early a= llocation of the following values: --> Value for a new flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag" in the RSVP Attribu= te Bit Flags space. IANA has created a registry and manages the space of at= tributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of = [RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource Reservati= on Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located in h= ttps://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml= . The document "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information",draft-i= etf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, introduces and defines a new Attribute B= it Flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag". It is requested that IANA makes an e= arly assignment of the value of the "SRLG Collection Flag" from the Attribu= te Bit Flags. --> Type for a new RRO sub-object, named "SRLG sub-object " within the ROU= TE_RECORD Object space. IANA has made assignments in the "Class Names, Clas= s Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry locat= ed at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. It is requested that= IANA makes an early assignment of the type of the new proposed RRO sub obj= ect in the document draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 named "SRLG su= b-object" from the ROUTE_RECORD portions of the mentioned registry. -> Value for a new Policy Control Failure Error sub code. IANA has made ass= ignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" se= ction of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-par= ameters. We request that IANA makes an early assignment of a new error sub= -code from the Policy Control Failure Sub-Codes registry. The main reason for the request of the early allocation is to facilitate i= nteroperability of early implementations, as other WG documents have also n= ew values in the same registry and clashes have been identified with the su= ggested values in the draft. Best Regards, Oscar ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o= copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislaci= =F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo = comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this co= mmunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission = in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you h= ave received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, div= ulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o pode estar proibida em virtude= da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe = que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destru= i=E7=E3o --_000_CFF3F9455CB65oscargonzalezdediostelefonicacom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <7493AE2B5B562B4281DA3C17B7BB0922@eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear CCAMP WG Chairs,

Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points defined in Sectio= n 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the WG draft "RSVP-TE E= xtensions for Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-s= rlg-collect-05, it is requested to CCAMP WG chairs the early allocation of the following values: 

 --> Value for = a new flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag" in the RSVP Attribute Bi= t Flags space. IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in = section 11.3 of [RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section = of the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Pa= rameters" registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te= -parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml. The document "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information"= ;,draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, introduces and defines a new At= tribute Bit Flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag". It is requested t= hat IANA makes an early assignment of the value of the "SRLG Collection Flag" from the Attribute Bit Flags. 

 --> Type for a= new RRO sub-object, named "SRLG sub-object " within the ROUTE_RE= CORD Object space. IANA has made assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARA= METERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-param= eters. It is requested that IANA makes an early assignment of the type of t= he new proposed RRO sub object in the document draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 named "SRLG sub-object"= from the ROUTE_RECORD portions of the mentioned registry. 

—> Value for a new Policy Control Failure Error sub code. IANA has made assignments in the= "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section= of the "RSVP
   PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/= assignments/rsvp-parameters.  We request that IANA makes an early assi= gnment of a new error sub-code from the Policy Control Failure Sub-Codes re= gistry.

 The main reason f= or the request of the early allocation is to facilitate interoperability of= early implementations, as other WG documents have also new values in the same registry and clashes have been identified= with the suggested values in the draft.

 Best Regards,

 Oscar
 



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede e= star prohibida en virtud de la legislaci=F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este m= ensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta m= isma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If y= ou have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immedia= tely reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error= and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, divulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o p= ode estar proibida em virtude da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta me= nsagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mes= ma via e proceda a sua destrui=E7=E3o
 --_000_CFF3F9455CB65oscargonzalezdediostelefonicacom_-- From nobody Tue Jul 22 15:18:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5A71A07A1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 BeavFgwDBnzo for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CC7AB1A0648 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19641 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jul 2014 22:18:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 22:18:00 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id VgHl1o00o2SSUrH01gHoXg; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:17:59 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=QL8L-aGI_OQA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=I0CVDw5ZAAAA:8 a=OTfaxyS_AAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=XWYQ3OhXsgAW2NsK-GAA:9 a=rAGjOeokM5lryaiX:21 a=vB2TRr2-ZwD2k395:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=vWIxZYxY2L8A:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=7BUJplnx-KMA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=gDWsdayaXv6pvWvwJb2Od1pM+LZeI/kmafakjWibEzA=; b=ZiBATZKmm/V6UXtY/jpgjYRWlGyd2bqqdjALUR47auOUEXR9HqqNKGxLSOLCjiDrfEu38C4WkdutbzBaqrCHpjMl45piPoFhZVk05iMXotUHYFRHf7lEAzKUCSsgPLwP; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:57628 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X9iNW-00055q-Pa; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:17:47 -0600 Message-ID: <53CEE315.8070409@labn.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:17:57 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ccamp-ads@tools.ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RRSG53uBQTGPa2p9d5lvSDAvQ18 Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Fwd: Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:18:09 -0000 Adrian, The WG chairs support the following early allocation request: 1) In the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml : Type (value to be assigned) Name SRLG Collection Flag Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES yes Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES yes 2) In the Sub-object type ‒ 21 ROUTE_RECORD portion of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml: Value: (value to be assigned) 34 is suggested to align with ERO Description: SRLG sub-object 3) In the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes, Sub-Codes ‒ 2 Policy Control Failure" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. Value: (value to be assigned) Description: SRLG sub-object Do you approve this request -- so that we can submit the request (per stpe 5 of RFC7120)? Thank you, Lou (and Deborah) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:35 +0000 From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS To: Lou Berger , DEBORAH A BRUNGARD CC: CCAMP Dear CCAMP WG Chairs, Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the WG draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, it is requested to CCAMP WG chairs the early allocation of the following values: --> Value for a new flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag" in the RSVP Attribute Bit Flags space. IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of [RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml. The document "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information",draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, introduces and defines a new Attribute Bit Flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag". It is requested that IANA makes an early assignment of the value of the "SRLG Collection Flag" from the Attribute Bit Flags. --> Type for a new RRO sub-object, named "SRLG sub-object " within the ROUTE_RECORD Object space. IANA has made assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. It is requested that IANA makes an early assignment of the type of the new proposed RRO sub object in the document draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 named "SRLG sub-object" from the ROUTE_RECORD portions of the mentioned registry. —> Value for a new Policy Control Failure Error sub code. IANA has made assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We request that IANA makes an early assignment of a new error sub-code from the Policy Control Failure Sub-Codes registry. The main reason for the request of the early allocation is to facilitate interoperability of early implementations, as other WG documents have also new values in the same registry and clashes have been identified with the suggested values in the draft. Best Regards, Oscar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição From nobody Tue Jul 22 16:44:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D22C1A0A9D; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 We7U8tkbledA; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7811A0A87; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140722234424.2676.3075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:24 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/fj8-Fr8N4UQs821sx1FqHxfid48 Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:44:26 -0000 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 : GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration Authors : Attila Takacs Balazs Peter Gero Hao Long Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2014-07-22 Abstract: The GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) work extended GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the establishment of Ethernet LSPs. IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) specifies an adjunct OAM flow to check connectivity in Ethernet networks. CFM can be also used with Ethernet LSPs for fault detection and triggering recovery mechanisms. The ITU-T Y.1731 specification builds on CFM and specifies additional OAM mechanisms, including Performance Monitoring, for Ethernet networks. This document specifies extensions of GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol to support the setup of the associated Ethernet OAM entities of Ethernet LSPs, and defines the Ethernet technology specific TLVs based on the GMPLS OAM Configuration Framework. This document supports, but does not modify, the IEEE and ITU-T OAM mechanisms. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jul 22 19:23:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36D31A0114 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:23:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 TkEa1PEIwG7I for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6DC1A03C1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6N2NH96023597; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:23:18 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3fb.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6N2NE1C023561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:23:15 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Lou Berger'" , References: <53CEE315.8070409@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CEE315.8070409@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:23:18 +0100 Message-ID: <0ef901cfa61d$12b296b0$3817c410$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGuhldSRgwq0YlUxxNK7p+Q47TGEAJcGeH3m9xLvVA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20834.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--40.964-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--40.964-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFrW/bDrA6VrLbxygpRxo469BGvINcfHqhe0Vg+MnSE2GH/2 0wqGUabSTWLw2jvbfpxS13xU66XgGt3j88HhodGN8OsWh3diggqx2AbjyiiRkMi9AjK6C8p1QeJ z9upwOByOiDDBL0DXe3rXRet6mu9irsq/7BhdGyDnjuQQVkVPTfioIsi7Sa0gsneuamRRT5Ml3W kwfnyDsU8mmlqvTMl9vodvpEYj9V4LK4dUlqy0pEYrj4yCOHaSWwKGivsEuI3EXelUnE6spSksj JeAae2uCDrptHUc/xOqG3a/jBZfhjj4RKrox6Ifug9L9GJz8MtF0vHVf0FWQCy6DFF5hapmtTDL ZLR3mBF5OyeMA/FqQex44vPKs+3eaWbbDm4LdIY00dkxYNMRt8yZqgcnwGktztSbQ50f5j4DczT 7r04VrT9GV1ZAneJEY89xjdcdOy57gDs90fC07N7WbjzlfTkve77gz7lToJuAcW0+Rk61r6nyL1 DZazgUgclMfTdtajvXF9jrp/6/uJTVbblBCXFjTuRpUOBlLe/y1N5yYpkPtVADxsP3Lo16iKJu3 ChLBBCpX66kRu+SXUI4W1swQ9AKSJpKBK5xAUnD+IQCVJ3iRm+7CRuDmTtVqo60IlPYBztWPzlt MP6/jdqq7U/PGpXMOqJadNG5QTZAW3ODyfm3/rMjW/sniEQKY9JlLwL1dg3KY//WmIj/oYu3tdA XbWvtcrX2yaJcE9k6W25e1Bs1RC5Am3YGl5jJxDtI40oHM26lY+G3TvhajQAdFMC0xN/9PEIQ6i syHHwcIfeRBwa7IXGaAlsiH8ZWQD5Pc//uvXaeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8wxWsZgByNxbe3/9uS SiAvgtuKBGekqUpPjKoPgsq7cA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/n3FE-Mcab2Arq-QMc6y9OfLxEI0 Cc: 'CCAMP' Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:23:22 -0000 Hi, I approve. Please check that the IANA section of the draft is nice and clean so = IANA can make the right allocations with no ambiguity. OR Wait a few days for me to have time to check the draft. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: 22 July 2014 23:18 > To: ccamp-ads@tools.ietf.org > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: Fwd: Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag = and RRO > sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 >=20 >=20 > Adrian, > The WG chairs support the following early allocation request: >=20 > 1) In the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "Resource Reservation > Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located in > https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- > parameters.xhtml> > parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml > parameters.xhtml>: >=20 > Type (value to be assigned) > Name SRLG Collection Flag > Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES yes > Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES yes >=20 > 2) In the Sub-object type =E2=80=92 21 ROUTE_RECORD portion of the = Resource > Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml: > Value: (value to be assigned) 34 is suggested to align with ERO > Description: SRLG sub-object >=20 > 3) In the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes, > Sub-Codes =E2=80=92 2 Policy Control Failure" section of the "RSVP = PARAMETERS" > registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. > Value: (value to be assigned) > Description: SRLG sub-object >=20 > Do you approve this request -- so that we can submit the request (per > stpe 5 of RFC7120)? >=20 > Thank you, > Lou (and Deborah) >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Request for early IANA Allocation of values for new flag and > RRO sub-object in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:19:35 +0000 > From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS > To: Lou Berger , DEBORAH A BRUNGARD > > CC: CCAMP >=20 >=20 >=20 > Dear CCAMP WG Chairs, >=20 > Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track > Code Points defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the = authors > of the WG draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information", > draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, it is requested to CCAMP WG > chairs the early allocation of the following values: >=20 > --> Value for a new flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag" in the RSVP > Attribute Bit Flags space. IANA has created a registry and manages the > space of attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV, as described in > section 11.3 of [RFC5420], in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of = the > "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) = Parameters" > registry located in > https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te- > parameters.xhtml. > The document "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG > Information",draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05, introduces and > defines a new Attribute Bit Flag, named "SRLG Collection Flag". It is > requested that IANA makes an early assignment of the value of the = "SRLG > Collection Flag" from the Attribute Bit Flags. >=20 > --> Type for a new RRO sub-object, named "SRLG sub-object " within the > ROUTE_RECORD Object space. IANA has made assignments in the "Class > Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP = PARAMETERS" > registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. = It > is requested that IANA makes an early assignment of the type of the = new > proposed RRO sub object in the document > draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05 named "SRLG sub-object" from > the ROUTE_RECORD portions of the mentioned registry. >=20 > =E2=80=94> Value for a new Policy Control Failure Error sub code. IANA = has made > assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value > Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP > PARAMETERS" registry located at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We request that IANA > makes an early assignment of a new error sub-code from the Policy > Control Failure Sub-Codes registry. >=20 > The main reason for the request of the early allocation is to = facilitate > interoperability of early implementations, as other WG documents have > also new values in the same registry and clashes have been identified > with the suggested values in the draft. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Oscar >=20 >=20 >=20 > = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >=20 > Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su = destinatario, > puede contener informaci=C3=B3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para = uso > exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el > destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, = utilizaci=C3=B3n, > divulgaci=C3=B3n y/o copia sin autorizaci=C3=B3n puede estar prohibida = en virtud > de la legislaci=C3=B3n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, = le > rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=C3=ADa y = proceda > a su destrucci=C3=B3n. >=20 > The information contained in this transmission is privileged and > confidential information intended only for the use of the individual = or > entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, = distribution > or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please = immediately > reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error > and then delete it. >=20 > Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu > destinat=C3=A1rio, pode conter informa=C3=A7=C3=A3o privilegiada ou = confidencial e =C3=A9 > para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=C3=A3o = =C3=A9 vossa > senhoria o destinat=C3=A1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a = leitura, > utiliza=C3=A7=C3=A3o, divulga=C3=A7=C3=A3o e/ou c=C3=B3pia sem = autoriza=C3=A7=C3=A3o pode estar proibida em > virtude da legisla=C3=A7=C3=A3o vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por = erro, > rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e > proceda a sua destrui=C3=A7=C3=A3o From nobody Tue Jul 22 23:12:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3FD1A001D for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.236 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 Ms3VpKKr_8U1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail2.infinera.com (outgoingmail2.infinera.com [204.128.141.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BED1A0045 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd2.infinera.com (10.100.103.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:44 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:44 -0700 From: Rajan Rao To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , Iftekhar Hussain Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt Thread-Index: Ac+kGXH6Y94TWY5qRO6+Mbd8d/ZgZwCHVBDQ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/QXZPlvdWKaYZixH3Rimb70hZNvg Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:12:01 -0000 Adrian, The composite label section in the draft (sec 4.3) refers to RFC 7139. In = OTN label we did not enforce this. The OTN Label allows use of non-contigu= ous time slots within a Te-Link. It is not clear from this draft as to why= we shouldn't take the same approach? Perhaps we should step back and look at possible uses cases that would fall= in to VCAT/inverse-muxing (IM) categories. I can think of the following: 1. IM across Te-Links within a single fiber 2. IM across Te-links in different fibers 3. IM across Te-links within a bundle 4. IM across frequency slots within a Te-Link While none of these are defined by ITU, this label draft seems to be addres= sing #4. It is not clear why one would enforce VCAT/IM within a Te-Link. = Do you have a use case in mind? If we take same position as in RFC 7139 then there is no reason to restrict= use of single Label with non-contiguous frequency slots. Thx Rajan -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:54 AM To: Iftekhar Hussain Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01= .txt > It is clear from your response that composite label portion is way=20 > beyond the ITU > data plane definition as of today.=20 I'm sorry I have given you that impression. Sorrier still if the text in th= e I-D leaves you with that impression. It was my intention that this document defined a label that could be used f= or the limited form of concatenated slot that is currently defined by the I= TU-T. It was also my intention that the document clearly and unequivocally states= that the label is not for any undefined (by the ITU-T) data plane construc= ts. However, I wanted to ensure that the defined label is forward compatible. > Do you still have reasons for keeping the composite label portion in=20 > the draft? If not please take it off the WG document. Well, it is a WG I-D so my reason, as editor, is governed by what the WG wa= nts. I had formed the opinion, in the run up to WG adoption, that the WG support= ed this idea. And before I posted the revised I-D, I circulated the text on= the list, received a couple of comments, and tweaked the text. I don't bel= ieve I heard anyone objecting to the idea at that time. Perhaps the chairs can help guide us to understand what the WG wants includ= ed in the document. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Wed Jul 23 00:02:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B60A1A0091 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:02:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 msUkAS2tbNW1 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076851A008F for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:02:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406098967; x=1407308567; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=OZq4qm4y+G8wMotbYDjvRbIazseBifRPTWU4McAEF6Q=; b=NhZSSS+8Ftcd9IdWFfUSyWM8LikFwtAaPOmScQ5Nrbs6hGbMTaTv1ToK YalBWHzhVjbY9guvV0WFpINX7HEuzK5Aa78bCKqezkNK/Fc4MRhykygZG R47eOjZUGprjL+gTuoKpm2tC9GS8QfHedudopwQjWASNWPqi8NatD6Iki k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAEBdz1OtJA2F/2dsb2JhbABZgkdHUlcEzzABgQsWdoQDAQIELV4BCA4DAwECKDkUCQgBAQQBEohCvn8XjzoYhEYFmyaUNINGbIFF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,715,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="63243719" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 07:02:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6N72kjM016776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:02:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:02:45 -0500 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: Khuzema Pithewan , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCA Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.86.255.168] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFF4D759BFFADzaliciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/IXmaPNXqqr35XMQWX8ApU2HykVM Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:02:49 -0000 --_000_CFF4D759BFFADzaliciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Khuzema: We can add a Recommendation section to the draft. Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment. Thanks Regards =85 Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM To: "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Authors : It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify whic= h options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /crit= ique of options would help. For example : Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks= one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 shou= ld be used. Thanks Khuzema --_000_CFF4D759BFFADzaliciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <8485C15E6EFFED4BA26EE9BDEDF1ABBD@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Khuzema:

We can add a Recommendati= on section to the draft. 

Opt= ion 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment.  

Thanks

Regards =85 Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM=
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <cca= mp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-l= sp-diversity-04

Authors :

 

It will be useful to have a recommendation section i= n draft to clarify which options can be used in what scenario. Some discuss= ion on comparison /critique of options would help.

 

For example :

 

Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used = resulting in crankbacks one after another. So if client layer cannot provid= e XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

 

Thanks

Khuzema

 --_000_CFF4D759BFFADzaliciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 00:10:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95521A00AF for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:10:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 x89cVy-wl6HY for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail2.infinera.com (outgoingmail2.infinera.com [204.128.141.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56D6E1A0097 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd2.infinera.com (10.100.103.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:10:23 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:10:23 -0700 From: Khuzema Pithewan To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCAAAIaqXA= Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: <206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7db@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7dbsvex13prd1infineracom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/3fXhCmbn81nxvv83iM63Wq82e8I Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:10:46 -0000 --_000_206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7dbsvex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks. The issue is if XROs are not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only= . So XROs are kind of mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way. Khuzema From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Khuzema: We can add a Recommendation section to the draft. Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment. Thanks Regards ... Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM To: "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Authors : It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify whic= h options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /crit= ique of options would help. For example : Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks= one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 shou= ld be used. Thanks Khuzema --_000_206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7dbsvex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks.

 

The issue is if XROs a= re not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only. So XROs are kind of = mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way.

 

Khuzema

 

From: Zafar Al= i (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

 

Khuzema= :

&n= bsp;

We can = add a Recommendation section to the draft. 

&n= bsp;

Option 1 also uses = XRO. I did not get your comment.  

 

Thanks<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

Regards= … Zafar

&n= bsp;

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org"= <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04=

&n= bsp;

Authors :

 =

It will be useful to hav= e a recommendation section in draft to clarify which options can be used in= what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /critique of options would he= lp.

 =

For example :=

 =

Option#1 has scalability= issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks one after another. So i= f client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

 =

Thanks=

Khuzema

--_000_206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7dbsvex13prd1infineracom_-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 00:51:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5171A0135 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:51:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 FpNSUR9r6HWq for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0577C1A0127 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:50:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10659; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406101857; x=1407311457; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=F7xTdffrPcoouZFIXIvr4t1QnPli5cNGIHhfrzN7cho=; b=HDA+GAeOBWKk5BmAvMxGZk1b2opPilbtuAp+nvJD6aTFQWCcJ71VfcOA 8F6ZiOT8+DWKgg2h+qKMavr+DmxfRCL7u3d8WeDnKSESbvujwdgvrO2jg Ir1MmPu+jlnxUAxxVlz+aMbVxhsoHwzCDPWPYzpMkPFmuuCUfdmgGEivc 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAHxoz1OtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkdHUlcEzxcBgQsWdoQDAQEBBC1eAQgOAwMBAQEoORQJCAEBBAESiEK+fhePOhcBhEYFjkSMYpQ0g0ZsgUU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,715,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="341959915" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 07:50:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6N7ouY7021562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:50:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:50:55 -0500 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: Khuzema Pithewan , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCAAAIaqXD///yeAA== Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:50:55 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7db@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.105] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFF4E2BEC002Azaliciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/B2jHJO697Lg4bSZfmkKeaHkOsrg Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:51:01 -0000 --_000_CFF4E2BEC002Azaliciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Khuzema: Yes, exclusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankback, as= suggested by you. Thanks Regards =85 Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 AM To: zali >, "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thanks. The issue is if XROs are not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only= . So XROs are kind of mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way. Khuzema From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Khuzema: We can add a Recommendation section to the draft. Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment. Thanks Regards =85 Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM To: "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Authors : It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify whic= h options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /crit= ique of options would help. For example : Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks= one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 shou= ld be used. Thanks Khuzema --_000_CFF4E2BEC002Azaliciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Khuzema: 

Yes, exclusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankbac= k, as suggested by you. 

Thanks

Regards =85 Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10= AM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.= org>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-cca= mp-lsp-diversity-04

Thanks.

 

The issue is if XROs a= re not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only. So XROs are kind of = mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way.

 

Khuzema

 

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp= @ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

 

Khuzema= :

&n= bsp;

We can = add a Recommendation section to the draft. 

&n= bsp;

Option 1 also uses = XRO. I did not get your comment.  

 

Thanks<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

Regards= =85 Zafar

&n= bsp;

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org"= <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04=

&n= bsp;

Authors :

 =

It will be useful to hav= e a recommendation section in draft to clarify which options can be used in= what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /critique of options would he= lp.

 =

For example :=

 =

Option#1 has scalability= issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks one after another. So i= f client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

 =

Thanks=

Khuzema

 --_000_CFF4E2BEC002Azaliciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 00:55:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07C81A011F for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 bhgdPQ4TGEP0 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail2.infinera.com (outgoingmail2.infinera.com [204.128.141.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FDF1A019B for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd2.infinera.com (10.100.103.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:10 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:10 -0700 From: Khuzema Pithewan To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCAAAIaqXD///yeAIAAEWmA Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:55:09 +0000 Message-ID: <02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> References: <206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7db@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0svex13prd1infineracom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4yJAfvmE2xnO1cpZwO-vujvgtTQ Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:55:17 -0000 --_000_02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0svex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sure. Thanks! From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:51 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Hi Khuzema: Yes, exclusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankback, as= suggested by you. Thanks Regards ... Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 AM To: zali >, "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Thanks. The issue is if XROs are not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only= . So XROs are kind of mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way. Khuzema From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Khuzema: We can add a Recommendation section to the draft. Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment. Thanks Regards ... Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan > Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM To: "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04 Authors : It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify whic= h options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /crit= ique of options would help. For example : Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks= one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 shou= ld be used. Thanks Khuzema --_000_02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0svex13prd1infineracom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sure. Thanks!

 

From: Zafar Al= i (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:51 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

 

Hi Khuz= ema: 

&n= bsp;

Yes, ex= clusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankback, as sugges= ted by you. 

&n= bsp;

Thanks<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

Regards= … Zafar

&n= bsp;

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 AM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com>= ;, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

&n= bsp;

Thanks.

 

The issue is if XROs a= re not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only. So XROs are kind of = mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way.

 

Khuzema

 

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:= zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp= @ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

 =

Khuzema= :

 <= /span>

We can = add a Recommendation section to the draft. 

 <= /span>

Option = 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment.  

 =

Thanks<= /span>

 <= /span>

Regards= … Zafar

 <= /span>

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org"= <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04=

 <= /span>

Authors :

 =

It will be useful to hav= e a recommendation section in draft to clarify which options can be used in= what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /critique of options would he= lp.

 =

For example :=

 =

Option#1 has scalability= issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks one after another. So i= f client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

 =

Thanks=

Khuzema

--_000_02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0svex13prd1infineracom_-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 04:49:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457DA1ABD19 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:49:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 kaNKS1_kV-B1 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 54CA21ABC74 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7638 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 11:49:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 11:49:02 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id Vtou1o0072SSUrH01toxfJ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:49:00 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=Tn_ukFwnhbYA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=xuPBokJpitAA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=b_JuxzwvERQ9i2uLF7cA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=tG+wzBh0uVIfkKmYIX8SCOhEh3onyJIuQJX7UJViqVo=; b=MJFT08bKTenko3t/jhI825ApcSuhGNm6Fq2yFupiMMSmeRF27eTArtUEp8/0JNrQc3VNF5k2bTFs+qsqkGiMFZhpCRIkR5ZxFFjuKBAZJ+piKDIjjqnhOXWnMNxG2SxU; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:55412 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X9v2V-0003hX-6a; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:48:55 -0600 Message-ID: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:49:06 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/f3NYk0yUWOASRtqbwp942_BKjUc Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:49:08 -0000 Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your response. From nobody Wed Jul 23 04:50:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DACB1ADDB5 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:50:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 weDYaV55L4y3 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DC4671ABC74 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24320 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 11:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 11:50:29 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id VnqN1o0022SSUrH01nqRlc; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:50:28 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EJKVjTpC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=bm8EsyOJfVoA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=A1J93SvKSgQA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=b_JuxzwvERQ9i2uLF7cA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=tG+wzBh0uVIfkKmYIX8SCOhEh3onyJIuQJX7UJViqVo=; b=0XwBG+xKRAIpp7sjJtwzlJOfMKF4WbDfrYntMZQraRuNq1+FbJ895qUWNdq+/BAjIkjOYmkqZdS/iHvW2iIKHyhPF3gg0LH//v5z7CckUhlevv50ksbjDP5b6BbMdMwf; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:55545 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X9v3u-00046K-RH; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:50:22 -0600 Message-ID: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:50:35 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/r_ty7ziWO2KsFxc3PDHscnS2QcQ Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:50:31 -0000 Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your response. From nobody Wed Jul 23 06:08:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9301B27FB for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:08:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ab2ELBCt4YTF for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.advaoptical.com (mail3.advaoptical.com [74.202.24.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8B2A1A0AE8 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com (atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com [172.16.5.39]) by atl-vs-fsmail.advaoptical.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6ND8erB026506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:08:40 -0400 Received: from ATL-SRV-MBX2.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.46) by atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:08:40 -0400 Received: from ATL-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.45) by ATL-SRV-MBX2.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.17; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:08:39 -0400 Received: from ATL-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com ([fe80::6433:f8f:ea41:a6e1]) by ATL-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com ([fe80::6433:f8f:ea41:a6e1%14]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.017; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:08:39 -0400 From: Igor Bryskin To: Lou Berger , "draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label Thread-Index: AQHPpmxUif3vgl3jt0O6If6DHUY5g5utoORQ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.16.5.49] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-07-23_03:2014-07-22,2014-07-23,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/SHewpxBW6OtpuZtLHyZdIl28uR4 Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:47 -0000 No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Igor ________________________________________ From: CCAMP [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Lou Berger [lberger@labn.= net] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:50 AM To: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org; BRUN= GARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned= -upstream-label Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your response. _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Wed Jul 23 07:09:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF711B2984 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 3RVtPeKuj0ib for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295911B286B for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NE91sf002784; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:09:01 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-9755.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.151.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NE8uZU002683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:08:58 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Lou Berger'" , , "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A \(ATTLABS\)'" References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:09:00 +0100 Message-ID: <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEyWzCsfre33/NrPc+YvrA9ysYiOJzoOPpQ Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20834.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.639-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--5.639-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: y/2oPz6gbvjZfnct5UBzcXBRIrj8R47Ft3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGPq+ JLKFEPMFS37ylPfL+Eyu5iYbRbJHfUd2G5hiQttMb8JTZf0kEzuB01driWko2/Pab+iVeGnNWLx BPNZs7c9yoYixrJy5t3sIq/kLg+0eOWEDgxHS9MlmVHNo7XGknfqtWPv3hAK2X30pMm+iz0gbgq ptt/XAqHne6lAduY4wvPid/JgRJ7TuTqB9IeE6lZmug812qIbz21y0oPfgygpq4coTktrGX5VEF uOCmbPDaeXbW3aJqoab7quYRXJ/JkkjllSXrjtQOX/V8P8ail3InWAWA4yE6foA9r2LThYYKrau Xd3MZDVtXLmr+RhWkXpkjX4JFLTEN1vMj3zlrgOHle5osOa/OlRZFBuj0qLHKeyNcavskCncHO3 jNE4aIykZT11IHfBCmalIsRMV2vZtmS0aXb567KfItuohgjfnw/3NmPJsa4pNWfnUnboMLyBJEZ lhLWrQQwymtxuJ6y0= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/9cx9V1hM7ULNJlV9PLeCJ0PjfuY Cc: 'CCAMP' Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:09:12 -0000 Hi Lou, I am not aware of any IPR that directly impacts on the content of this document. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: 23 July 2014 12:49 > To: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org; BRUNGARD, > DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > > > Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) > > As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? > > Please state either: > > "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" > or > "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" > > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > > If yes to the above, please state either: > > "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" > or > "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" > > If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think > appropriate. > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the > above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are > aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next > stage until a response has been received from each author and listed > contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. > > If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules > which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of > others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any > contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more > information, please see the RFCs listed above and > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. > > Thank you, > CCAMP WG Chairs > > PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your > response. From nobody Wed Jul 23 10:42:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63761B2BBD for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 jwZbiLgH2-vn for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4222D1B2A32 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26434 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 17:42:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 17:42:03 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id Vzhs1o00h2SSUrH01zhvQp; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:42:01 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=U6qwPQrzJV4A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ws5xTUjv_-hjrCfWwAgA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=DDH0wPqOoQgKtepKIcVWFRr21eWifDrwj0hN/0Lnp9U=; b=dChv4B5y1WjE5HTbvY4sCA3zLI9lXo0iT5mrVSb+Qe8DSfIMIusm9wISxAFHdnz877wG9+i8fnnHhzdU7ssxif9qc9cdkRFstYCP3c06XmSfacI0Hn1rk+ceIFqJ9+Za; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:35755 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XA0Y5-0001dw-Na; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:41:53 -0600 Message-ID: <53CFF3EE.6060704@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:42:06 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/pujaBP4hWTnsfnWFLY9MrtozsjE Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org, 'CCAMP' Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:42:15 -0000 Adrian, I'm sure I'm being pedantic, but I'm not sure if there's some subtlety I'm missing. Are you saying (a) "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or (b) or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" (but doesn't "directly impact" content...) - please choose (A) or (B). Thanks... Lou On 7/23/2014 10:09 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Lou, > > I am not aware of any IPR that directly impacts on the content of this document. > > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: 23 July 2014 12:49 >> To: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org; BRUNGARD, >> DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) >> Cc: CCAMP >> Subject: Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange >> >> >> Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) >> >> As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: >> >> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? >> >> Please state either: >> >> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" >> or >> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" >> >> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? >> >> If yes to the above, please state either: >> >> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" >> or >> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" >> >> If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think >> appropriate. >> >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the >> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are >> aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next >> stage until a response has been received from each author and listed >> contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. >> >> If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or >> contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules >> which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of >> others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any >> contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more >> information, please see the RFCs listed above and >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. >> >> Thank you, >> CCAMP WG Chairs >> >> PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your >> response. > From nobody Wed Jul 23 13:19:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42ED1B27F2 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:19:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 PFCnyU3pp057 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443881B27D2 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NKJJY9017774; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:19:19 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3fb.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NKJGAg017742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:19:18 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Rajan Rao'" , "'Iftekhar Hussain'" References: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:19:20 +0100 Message-ID: <128601cfa6b3$6438e200$2caaa600$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJaE2o6z+dVp6fGOogjtqraqrb4dALTPfe2moKgJDA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20836.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.886-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.886-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: UuaOI1zLN1hUO3zzgy+7kAPZZctd3P4B04YDUaw9vVedYFRaUAqcE0Y1 +6e6b6ZUvijLNHEVmrjwGUs41+tnazdbpxRu5kl84aieqCznPEFQCOsAlaxN7/0TP/kikeqnoxD umqWhmCPC96w3MrbH0als5Mq1Q9p8V0jfPUUyZ7fcWo5Vvs8MQqO7Nt6iP+dXSs2HWVCds5kRRL fe6UPgvEkmuifZJY60cbqFQ3yZjna3gvK5mEE83ylrosmS0SOAbv16+gil4jcdY1owGR6BJyUcP KwixlDPTc03k8m3BJE3oKCeP3WPITB7AhAesYcjf01qcJQDhV51YAaV5eZ2GPz8gO6hgjLzDTe2 LH7huSuuFD7sQ2IGIjO4QiDM6ynFXHEPHmpuRH05f9Xw/xqKXdivpTdmVCR2xEHRux+uk8jHUU+ U0ACZwAN87PlQQKggrFZHR0PXrHPIZRc/ojgmpECcIyAVkYUbnqg/VrSZEiM= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/pfV_fZQ0cg_ice8361X8oSeO82k Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:19:24 -0000 Hello Rajan, > The composite label section in the draft (sec 4.3) refers to RFC 7139. The draft says... The creation of a composite of multiple channels to support inverse multiplexing is already supported in GMPLS for TDM and OTN [RFC4606], [RFC6344], [RFC7139]. The mechanism used for flexigrid is similar. > In OTN label we did not enforce this. I don't understand that. RFC 7139 *is* signaling for OTN. What is it you didn't enforce in OTN label? > The OTN Label allows use of non-contiguous time slots within a Te-Link. This is true. > It is not clear from this draft as to why we shouldn't take the > same approach? Because the data plane to support this has not been defined by the ITU-T. (If you disagree with this, perhaps you could point me at the relevant Recommendation.) > Perhaps we should step back and look at possible uses cases that would fall in to > VCAT/inverse-muxing (IM) categories. I can think of the following: > > 1. IM across Te-Links within a single fiber > 2. IM across Te-links in different fibers > 3. IM across Te-links within a bundle > 4. IM across frequency slots within a Te-Link > > While none of these are defined by ITU, this label draft seems to be addressing > #4. It is not clear why one would enforce VCAT/IM within a Te-Link. Do you have > a use case in mind? The draft says... Note further that while the mechanism described here naturally means that all component channels are corouted, a composite channel can also be achieved by constructing individual LSPs from single flexi- grid slots and managing those LSPs as a group. A mechanism for achieving this for TDM is described in [RFC6344], but is out of scope for discussion in this document because the labels used are normal, single slot labels and require no additional definitions. This seems to cover 1, 2, and 3. Do you see a way that those models are handled in our OTN signaling without sending more than one signaling message? But note that the ITU-T does not currently define how you would achieve such a composite channel in flexi-grid, and that would mean that anyone writing an I-D that explained how achieve this would be blocked until the data plane had been documented. The document also says... At the time of writing [G.694.1] only supports only groupings of adjacent slots (i.e., without intervening unused slots that could be used for other purposes) of identical width (same value of m), and the component slots must be in increasing order of frequency (i.e., increasing order of the value n). The mechanism defined here MUST NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T. This covers 4, and explains how that case is split into two different scenarios. What is not clear about this text? > If we take same position as in RFC 7139 then there is no reason to restrict use of > single Label with non-contiguous frequency slots. But we do take the same position! 7139 did not do anything that was not already defined in a data pane specification. We are taking the same approach. Adrian From nobody Wed Jul 23 13:25:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF121B2910 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 exj02NaYMaDx for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D221B2822 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NKP8aa017502; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:25:08 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3fb.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6NKP2BP017479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:25:04 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Lou Berger'" References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> <53CFF3EE.6060704@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFF3EE.6060704@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:25:06 +0100 Message-ID: <129001cfa6b4$331a4f00$994eed00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEyWzCsfre33/NrPc+YvrA9ysYiOAFLrFryAhkxnSSczYm1sA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20836.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.906-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--22.906-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: WMT2WRIkHPNdpLkh5p97g/zu9Lw9C7fA8GRhP/nTHNbD3h2nmZ4BQeu/ ECyhLxqOau/OBb09XPsMo1U+ogv8V10U3RPW+iLPFUNRozODPxhqTX06kzHrl99RlPzeVuQQMBt iyJQFGD5xLsht+SbvNPFPDHhQkgxyMA8bs51X9/naize54oCwVFY5BBJri9sdtXl9IxEPXOqtEa JoVjyWkHnlvzhRXao32E7x9GZo7QkOwH4pD14DsJpWgCLYjjT9fkuZtv/FS5qdI/DikZ1UPHiCe 8dVoQXovdx9Sox4uW3npaBaoP7oRPL41OcGi0pOe7MO8jvmPSxpeZ1cXZibx8Xt25YNeIUSZ3KR kLO0vRkwwVGIprj9L84WYLmQfXYmnJra0Su7THtxPA6arkYp0B9fNWA7SFWq5Jdw/cP0HM+SkJb MheHNAW+/reE7JvSyhtfOGOSyK2lNfs8n85Te8v7E6GNqs6ceseWplitmp0j6C0ePs7A07QKmAR N5PTKc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/0ufBp4txhCClNKRqapi7Uzu44sc Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org, 'CCAMP' Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:25:15 -0000 Hi, This document describes many ways of building networks based on existing tools and protocols. One might even say it encourages the use of some tools and protocols. I do not intend to look at each such tool and protocol to work out whether I know about IPR that has already been disclosed and logged in the data tracker (which would be how I know about it). Hence my answer. Perhaps a more helpful answer would be... I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not already been disclosed to the IETF. Ciao, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: 23 July 2014 18:42 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org; 'BRUNGARD, > DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)'; 'CCAMP' > Subject: Re: Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > > Adrian, > I'm sure I'm being pedantic, but I'm not sure if there's some > subtlety I'm missing. Are you saying > (a) "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or (b) > or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" (but doesn't > "directly impact" content...) > > - please choose (A) or (B). > > Thanks... > > Lou > > > On 7/23/2014 10:09 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi Lou, > > > > I am not aware of any IPR that directly impacts on the content of this > document. > > > > Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >> Sent: 23 July 2014 12:49 > >> To: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org; BRUNGARD, > >> DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) > >> Cc: CCAMP > >> Subject: Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > >> > >> > >> Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) > >> > >> As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: > >> > >> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? > >> > >> Please state either: > >> > >> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" > >> or > >> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" > >> > >> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > >> > >> If yes to the above, please state either: > >> > >> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" > >> or > >> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" > >> > >> If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think > >> appropriate. > >> > >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the > >> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are > >> aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next > >> stage until a response has been received from each author and listed > >> contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. > >> > >> If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or > >> contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules > >> which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of > >> others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any > >> contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more > >> information, please see the RFCs listed above and > >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> CCAMP WG Chairs > >> > >> PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your > >> response. > > From nobody Wed Jul 23 13:30:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D271D1B29B1 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:30:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Nh5hzIKF3EU4 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 72CAC1B29B0 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23379 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 20:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 20:30:19 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id W2WE1o00P2SSUrH012WH3s; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:30:17 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=fudPOjIf c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=PbZz0dWL9FWi-WGOQJgA:9 a=5g5J9BrVR6vUFYnB:21 a=SH7IU-hLntf8NLrF:21 a=G-lnHzCbIIrJeBhe:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=BiLwXGYpSpqWX4bXhYWqsLdgAKYDE7qrL8ii3ONfjpY=; b=Ca99QOkDOLI8AcccOiFBOFK5LMeTbne9l32OaFH7LiL/stQ8as/+wMOL6qXVWA7qd13EO6QMzCT5N/rDFBTBDiW2i5vLMTmCISBJ0CTUwZimZ0FCoXrWjqZMF7/wX2/q; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:53362 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XA3B0-0003ry-Dv for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:30:15 -0600 Message-ID: <53D01B63.3050303@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:30:27 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CCAMP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/OnTH8uL5fGCUTptTlrW9XEuUz1U Subject: [CCAMP] Raw notes from Toronto X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:30:29 -0000 Thank to all/any who contributed to the notes. All should feel free to make changes (through Friday) at http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-90-ccamp?useMonospaceFont=true Thank you! Lou and Deborah These are also available from the materials page: > > 0 - Combined with 1 > 1 - Agenda, Admin & WG Document Status > 2 - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling > 3 - draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > 4 - draft-dios-ccamp-control-models-customer-provider > 5 - draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity > 6 - draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect > 7 - draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label > 8 - Moving the overlay discussion forward > 9 - draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability & draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension > 10 - draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh > 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info > 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp > 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib > 14 - draft-zhang-ccamp-rsvpte-ber-measure > 15 - draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc > 16 - draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp > 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry > 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 > > Session 2014-07-21 1520-1650: Tudor 7/8 - Audio stream - ccamp chatroom > Session 2014-07-23 0900-1130: Territories - Audio stream - ccamp chatroom > > Agenda > CCAMP Agenda For IETF 90 > Version: > > First Session > MONDAY, July 21, 2014 > 1520-1650 Monday Afternoon Session II > Room: Tudor 7/8 (MM) > Presentation Start Time Duration Information > 0 15:20 10 Title: Administrivia & WG Status > Draft: No Agenda changes. > Presenter: Chairs > 1 15:30 10 Title: WG Document Status > Draft: > Presenter: - TE Metric Recording & SRLG Collection I-D Matthew: Code points documented have already been allocated by IANA for other I-Ds. Lou: More inclined to request they do not have early allocation and follow the IANA process Oscar: (as author) we already requested an early allocation. Lou: Lets discuss this issue during your presentation. Re: WG I-Ds not currently on agenda - What are the authors intentions? Rakesh Gandhi: Two months since the comments were made, but I have been in PTO, I will look to address them in the next few weeks. George: I need to synch with Zafar Lou: Please get with Zafar and ask him to provide an update to the list on when the draft might be updated > 2 15:40 10 Title: Post LC WSON Document Changes > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling > Presenter: Young Lee Lou: Implementors please review the document for changes. Are there volunteers willing to commit to a review by the end of August - 3 (including Authors.) I have some technical comments on the error processing and will send them to the list > 3 15:50 10 Title: Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > Presenter: TBD Igor: Who owns the abstraction layer? Who configures it? Adrian: concept of ownership is up for debate - abstraction layer may have physical resources from both Client and Server layer, and may be part of the contract between them. George: Server layer or control entity would control paths are created from the server layer. Igor: it may be dependent on time/day, the client may want to change (demand?) Oscar: Document is already 40 pages, might be worth splitting the document, maybe seperating terminology? Adrian: Inclusion of terminology was a request from chairs. Lou: I had made a request for seperate documents, but it seems this has not resonated with the authors. One or two documents is secondary, what is most important is to have terminology documented in one place. Adrian: Igor: Agree that it should be located in a single place. [Poll] How may read the document: a good number How many would support about the same Who has reservations regarding the document none We will take to the list. > 4 16:00 10 Title: Terminology and Models for Control of Traffic Engineered Networks with Provider-Customer Relationship > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dios-ccamp-control-models-customer-provider > Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez De Dios Fatai: The I-D list terminology/defintions but it does not prescribe which terms to use. Oscar: We compiled the terms, but it is up to the WG to decide which terms to use, something to discssion on the list. George: Historical purposes, re: the OIF UNI, was built around a commercial relationship between user and the network. We then stripped down the defintion to the essentials. Deborah: Do not spend too much effort/involved with terminology, we will clean up in the near future. Hannes: Lots of progress in current draft. Should we extend terminology to ENNI, or not? Lou: Are there any portions of the document that could not be merged with TE interconnection I-D. Oscar: No reason why the document could noy be merged, the only reservation would be on the size of the document. George: A reason for having a terminology section in TE interconnection document is that terms have become fuzzy and may be used differently. Oscar's document brings some precision to the dicussion. Lou: Ok, I see the motivation for ... In summary, lets keep the document seperate but review the TE interconnec and see whats missing and report to the list. Oscar: > 5 16:10 10 Title: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity > Presenter: Zafar Ali/George Swallow Lou: Three methods defined in I-D do you expect an implementation to supprot all three? George: (Yes?) Scenario specific, it depends on the use. Khuzema: Without XROs, option#1 uses crankbacks, which has scalability issue. Suggest to add recommendation to use option#2,3 if XROs are not used. George: as a means for last resort, but not preferred. Hannes: what if the server layer stops using some identifiers? Do we end up with a network full of stale XROs? George: these are just protocol mechanisms - we don’t specify how things get passed around. Gert: George: Lou: New requirements in I-D, that seem to conflict with your description. George: > 6 16:20 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect > Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Lou: how many have read latest version (reasonable number). Let's get the security stuff discussed this week. Lou: early allocation: should we get early allocation now if we do LC? Oscar: yes, we'd have liked it previously :) Matt: We should get on and do it - there's no downside and will be useful if LC takes a long time. Loa: if you have implementations, you should definitely do it. Also, WG chairs should stop docs attempting to allocate numbers unofficially - docs with actual numbers should be sent back to the authors and made TBD. Matthew: PWE3 has maintained a doc to keep tabs on proposed numbers Lou: we've tried a lot of things... nothing works and is politically acceptable. I think suggested values are OK. Loa: early allocation is much better than something that's not according to process. Suggested values also mean authors have to read many drafts in other WGs Lou: anyone opposed to early allocation? (none) Authors can work the process out :) Loa: send mail to WG chairs, copy AD, ask for early allocation Oscar: we did that Lou: do it again. > 7 16:30 10 Title: Network Assigned Upstream Label > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label > Presenter: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Lou: This draft receieved good support at the last meeting. (poll) How many are interested in function? [a good number], how many have read the document [about the same], how many think this draft is a good foundation for the WG [good support]. Okay, will confirm (poll) on the list. > 8 16:40 10 Title: Moving the overlay discussion forward > Draft: > Presenter: > Adjourn 16:50 > > > > Second Session > WEDNESDAY, July 23, 2014 > 0900-1130 Wednesday Morning Session I > Room: Territories (MM) > Presentation Start Time Duration Information > 0 9:00 5 Title: Administrivia > Draft: > Presenter: Chairs > > 9 9:05 10 Title: RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth & OSPF Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension > Presenter: Greg Mirsky Giovani: do you advertise availability? Greg: no Lou: yes (minor confusion, taking it to the list) Giovanni: could we have the capability generalized? Could be useful elsewhere. I have some ideas Greg: interesting idea, discuss on the list and see what other links might exhibit this behavior Lou: which technologies do you care about? Giovanni: optical ones Lou: how many think this is useful (good number) How many have read the docs? (pretty good number) If we were to poll on this, would anyone object to using these docs to build on? (none) > > 10 9:15 10 Title: Routing Extensions for Discovery of Role-based MPLS Label Switching Router (MPLS LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh > Presenter: Greg Mirsky Lou: need to emphasize that this is an update to something that already exists, not a completely new thing Greg: yes, this is an improvement to existing TE mesh-groups Lou: so this is based on RFC 4972. Do you see this as an update or bis to that? Greg: they can coexist Lou: how many have 4972 implementations or care about 4972? (none) how many have heard of it? (reasonable number) Adrian: 4972 deployments are mostly in packet world so a lot of folks who may care may well be in other WGs at the moment Lou: yes, we should perhaps coordinate with MPLS WG Greg: could Loa give us some time on Friday AM to talk about this in MPLS? Loa: if there's time Lou: how many would be interested in this? (reasonable number) Lou: please send a message to MPLS and ccamp lists to solicit feedback on draft > 11 9:25 10 Title: Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) with Impairments Validation > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info > Presenter: Giovanni Martinelli (no questions) Lou: last meeting there was reasonable interest in this... is this still the case? (reasonable support) How many think this is a good foundation? (same) Any reservations? (none) OK, will take to list to confirm Deborah: ITU question 6 meets in six weeks, and we may need to make some updates to this draft before then > 12 9:35 10 Title: Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp > Presenter: Gert Grammel (no comments, combined with next presentation) > 13 9:45 10 Title: An SNMP MIB extension to RFC3591 to manage optical interface parameters of DWDM applications > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib > Presenter: Gabriele Galimberti Julien, via jabber: WDM is mesh networks. How do we deploy this proposal? (LMP, rather than SNMP) Gert: LMP is the link between the roadm and transponder, so it's WSON rather than signaling Lou: so it's still what used to be called alien wave Gert: (scribe missed this bit) Deborah: What's the expectation if the ROADM doesn't support LMP? Gert: you go to the MIB Julien: what data plane channel is the information referring to? Just the link between ROADM and access point, or the whole link? Gert: the first hop between router and ROADM. You need to have a lambda already to have end to end correlation Lou (for Julien via Jabber): The LMP parameters - are you referring to data channel, or just the link? Gert: we're trying to correlate the sender and receiver application code so that on the access link both sides know what they're connected to. There's no lambda yet. You need to understand the link and make sure it's set up properly Gabriele: two steps in setting up network. 1st: understand parameters relative to transceivers, and you use LMP to make neighbors aware of these. 2nd: how do you flood these around the control plane? That's not LMP. Lou: so this is out of scope for LMP - signaling/routing do this, and so there may be PCE implications which may be Julien's interest Lou: next steps in slides seem reasonable, and we'll discuss again as docs mature. > 14 9:55 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extensions for Bit Error Rate (BER) Measurement > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-rsvpte-ber-measure > Presenter: Zhenbin Li Pat King: from an RF background, we can't tell you what the BER is - e only know we received things when the frame check is right, so the only way we can give you a BER is if you're using acknowledgement. So there's a lot of information here that the lower layers in RF can't supply. Packet error ratio is probably the best we can give you. And there are many things in the lower layers that you're not aware of so I'd question the need for a BER since many devices can't give it to you Julien: question 3 on slides is still relevant, and it doesn't apply. Look at RFC4260 Deborah: OAM is based on what data plane can support... includes MIPs Julien: there are tech-specific TLVs that can be used. Lou: you should look at prior work Zhenbin: OK Deborah: you have to align with the dataplane, and it doesn't support a bit error ratio. It's a block error ratio. You have to go on what the dataplane can support Giovanni: even when BER is available, it's only in a few places Deborah: you don't need to get into the granularity of telling the head-end the BER is off. The head can tell that the signal has degraded on its own. > 15 10:05 10 Title: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Signaling Procedure for Resource Sharing-based LSP Setup/Teardown > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc > Presenter: Haomian Zheng Lou: relating to next draft too: last meeting we talked about merging these two. Any comments? Haomian: this is prior information that enables re-use of resources. Lou: so this is applicable to restoration? Haomian: yes Lou: at some point Chairs will ask you to consider merging documents as mechanisms are similar, even if applications are different. Lou: how many think this information is useful? (a good number) So continue the draft and Chairs will think about polling the list. Lou: personally I'd like to see the drafts combined. Fatai: I think the authors tried to combine them but they were too different Deborah: why? Fatai: next draft is about protection object, this draft is not - it's broader than just protection > 16 10:15 10 Title: RSVP-TE Signaling For GMPLS Restoration LSP > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp > Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi Pavel: why do you say the two drafts are completely orthogonal? You can always share resources between associated LSPs Rakesh: yes, pairs of working and protecting LSPs can share. But there's no overlap Pavel: so you explicitly don't want working/protecting LSPs to share. Lou: remember that once the docs are WG docs the WG decides whether they merge or not :) Lou: "If you are an implementer working on the association object, do you have to read both document or you just need to read only one?" Rakesh: RFC 6689 covers the association object and there's a gap there that this draft covers. But there are more drafts to read to implement everything. Haomian: better if you're focusing on just one problem to only need to look at one draft. Lou: chairs think combination is good. How many are interested in docs? (good number) how many think we should combine (bit less) how many think it's a bad idea? (a few) Lou: please look at combining the docs and we can then poll WG on the combined doc Julien: if goal is clarification, single doc is easier > 17 10:35 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extension for Additional Signal Types in G.709 OTN > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 > Presenter: Matt Hartley Lou: the vendor-specific types cannot be standardized and should be removed from the doc Lou: how many have read (few) how many support the doc (same), Lou: This work compliments related work completed by the WG, please do the updates as discussed > 18 10:25 10 Title: IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry to the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry > Presenter: Matt Hartley Lou: I suspect you mean "Standards Action" rather than "Unassigned" Lou: Any comments from our AD - expect there are two areas where he may comment Adrian: The Experimental range looks large, also perhaps "Expert Reivew" is better than "Experimental" Adrian: the G.Supp43 values should be under Expert Review rather than Experimental, as they're going to be around for too long to be really experimental Lou: Agreed, not sure why we (AD&Chair) focused on Experimental at the last meeting, but Expert Reviews is clearly a better choice. Authors, please make the change to allow for Expert review, consider shrinking the experimental range and remove the private range. The document should indicate that the expert (for the expert review) will be appointed by the CCAMP WG chairs. Lou: The prior document should also request "Expert Review" values. > Adjourn 11:00 notes controbution by Matt From nobody Wed Jul 23 13:38:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE141A0537 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 xjrqnYBIOoRx for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A7DF11B29B0 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15993 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 20:38:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 20:38:33 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id W2eS1o0072SSUrH012eViY; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:38:31 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=fudPOjIf c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=U6qwPQrzJV4A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=bHHmnOLbCq8YVgQIkvcA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=OVcnjbLsyRcA:10 a=VmnZVXqTUmkA:10 a=arH_E2YnxBUA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=R8PJCZXfpCe/ZZ9hXf7JZWlH04ovZFFxtzpgJ+LDboE=; b=u3Z4DdaWgbpB7pJSPsEvppOtc04h+VHljrdy/8ZkEFvnIDxAZGvP1/RGlMNb0hwQtHVRGdk4xcGNaRLU+Co3GL4YgZPwQaPuiWBI2kK9QVOSXcj7cJCCmgEaOFDY1OhK; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:54203 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XA3Ix-0006V9-GW; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:38:27 -0600 Message-ID: <53D01D4F.4000209@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:38:39 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> <53CFF3EE.6060704@labn.net> <129001cfa6b4$331a4f00$994eed00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <129001cfa6b4$331a4f00$994eed00$@olddog.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/0Rh7nWiH241eJU81vGiy_p5wIdo Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org, 'CCAMP' Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:38:35 -0000 That's helpful. Thank you, Lou On 7/23/2014 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not already been > disclosed to the IETF. From nobody Wed Jul 23 17:45:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56551A0381 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.236 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 vWJsER-8HN0w for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoingmail1.infinera.com (outgoingmail1.infinera.com [204.128.141.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87D3B1A0115 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:35 -0700 Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:35 -0700 From: Rajan Rao To: Iftekhar Hussain , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt Thread-Index: Ac+kGXH6Y94TWY5qRO6+Mbd8d/ZgZwCHVBDQAC3TLQD//9EBQA== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:45:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <04d701cfa419$b7f9c1d0$27ed4570$@olddog.co.uk> , <128601cfa6b3$6438e200$2caaa600$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <128601cfa6b3$6438e200$2caaa600$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/LGhMlZAbuss60jvwxXSaSSr1mSw Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:45:53 -0000 Adrian, No issues with 1-3. For # 4, As long as we don't preclude use of single la= bel for multiple flex grid slots we should be fine. Para # 2 starts with c= omposite label but clarification later in the section you have is good. Thx Rajan ________________________________________ From: Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:19:20 PM To: Rajan Rao; Iftekhar Hussain Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-l= abel-01.txt Hello Rajan, > The composite label section in the draft (sec 4.3) refers to RFC 7139. The draft says... The creation of a composite of multiple channels to support inverse multiplexing is already supported in GMPLS for TDM and OTN [RFC4606], [RFC6344], [RFC7139]. The mechanism used for flexigrid is similar. > In OTN label we did not enforce this. I don't understand that. RFC 7139 *is* signaling for OTN. What is it you didn't enforce in OTN label= ? > The OTN Label allows use of non-contiguous time slots within a Te-Link. This is true. > It is not clear from this draft as to why we shouldn't take the > same approach? Because the data plane to support this has not been defined by the ITU-T. (If you disagree with this, perhaps you could point me at the relevant Recommendation.) > Perhaps we should step back and look at possible uses cases that would fa= ll in to > VCAT/inverse-muxing (IM) categories. I can think of the following: > > 1. IM across Te-Links within a single fiber > 2. IM across Te-links in different fibers > 3. IM across Te-links within a bundle > 4. IM across frequency slots within a Te-Link > > While none of these are defined by ITU, this label draft seems to be addressing > #4. It is not clear why one would enforce VCAT/IM within a Te-Link. Do= you have > a use case in mind? The draft says... Note further that while the mechanism described here naturally means that all component channels are corouted, a composite channel can also be achieved by constructing individual LSPs from single flexi- grid slots and managing those LSPs as a group. A mechanism for achieving this for TDM is described in [RFC6344], but is out of scope for discussion in this document because the labels used are normal, single slot labels and require no additional definitions. This seems to cover 1, 2, and 3. Do you see a way that those models are handled in our OTN signaling without sending more than one signaling message? But note that the ITU-T does not currently define how you would achieve suc= h a composite channel in flexi-grid, and that would mean that anyone writing an= I-D that explained how achieve this would be blocked until the data plane had b= een documented. The document also says... At the time of writing [G.694.1] only supports only groupings of adjacent slots (i.e., without intervening unused slots that could be used for other purposes) of identical width (same value of m), and the component slots must be in increasing order of frequency (i.e., increasing order of the value n). The mechanism defined here MUST NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T. This covers 4, and explains how that case is split into two different scena= rios. What is not clear about this text? > If we take same position as in RFC 7139 then there is no reason to restri= ct use of > single Label with non-contiguous frequency slots. But we do take the same position! 7139 did not do anything that was not already defined in a data pane specification. We are taking the same approach. Adrian From nobody Wed Jul 23 19:23:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4184D1A03D6 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TUSh6t3yW8PH for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6019F1A03C5 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so2047891wes.21 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=D1Q3RskSqNePcpx7zgm+f4Age16/cydE3JnTZAMSUQs=; b=tl2uphGkLu9sJIbqXaNyXIAnuo78I9Yr2UIWK2B9ebbWweQNoSQKOUWBo2765HgcZd mrXxRRAcRTW4VM60neIpg07imAKSi8P0w38mJBnJcaaPVuNCNJ6By/H2p+04I3ML1ICk 1K/3q42oqeBNGa3IVWuZQZ/4qAhzfTGDdDkb7TArU5k75Q8tjLiZW9eMJoKXFNAMHZFr GblgKMNStLSqIi0Bnr8PJLM/nhan3a7VO/N9encTn7Lu3mpZbTuFizqQ/FiIIV/dbord g+9jtllf3jtylfRDgQMknwXwDEsWRMmUYkmd5yVNXSfIZ3italQInG9HQ7/osEB3A9vh 6eIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.100.193 with SMTP id fa1mr8662890wib.16.1406168575774; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:22:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:22:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram To: Lou Berger Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444eca37416bc04fee722f1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ykDq_Y0M-0foSsmr5TcHstxrVGI Cc: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org, CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:22:59 -0000 --f46d0444eca37416bc04fee722f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. -Pavan On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) > > As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? > > Please state either: > > "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" > or > "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" > > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > > If yes to the above, please state either: > > "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" > or > "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" > > If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think > appropriate. > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the > above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are > aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next > stage until a response has been received from each author and listed > contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. > > If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules > which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of > others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any > contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more > information, please see the RFCs listed above and > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. > > Thank you, > CCAMP WG Chairs > > PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your > response. > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > --f46d0444eca37416bc04fee722f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
=
-Pavan


On = Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> w= rote:

Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP)

As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above?

=C2=A0 Please state either:

=C2=A0 "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft&qu= ot;
=C2=A0 or
=C2=A0 "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

=C2=A0 "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR ru= les"
=C2=A0 or
=C2=A0 "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
=C2=A0 appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. =C2=A0This document will not advance to the next=
stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
contributor. =C2=A0NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT.=

If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules
which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of
others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any
=C2=A0contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. =C2=A0For= more
information, please see the RFCs listed above and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/Int= ellectualProperty.

Thank you,
CCAMP WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

--f46d0444eca37416bc04fee722f1-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 19:28:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C54A1A0350 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 WYVdS0jtDz62 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECA6F1A0164 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so2091466wes.2 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZLMvr1ESPlAs+uE0XkO+khDX1z8pH55tve0kjL2a+Dk=; b=P70A8qHLgt8nroaMoTBWOVJP5cIhOr6kXg+7KEciRiq0yclxL1Ub+B3g+aNcFwnKNN 5TdpsCPwPk/WFrXai/Wz1H++NwwuY8BHXcQB00Xpio+p4Oxez+98RzSnOSGvUlg8yCBr Lqa/YYVbXFZzPdlBTrwzN4tIIzCmA+tBF7DHdYf0/IiAi+AbHY9DmXYyBUMHUQNJ/BP0 qX8HG40jQCcZfHPZ4ONaLM65a6hmXRuSfTYGGOiPEpscqIsdyhKXM+MCmJsREmartrFm yXMv1jRC52oqk2YwMtgqo9IRtJp2VE/diRrwEHDDRjl8WDMCEON0Bp6kcrz73xNWIsGB ErSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.19.1 with SMTP id a1mr30674540wie.16.1406168921632; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:28:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53D01D4F.4000209@labn.net> References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> <105d01cfa67f$a9b320e0$fd1962a0$@olddog.co.uk> <53CFF3EE.6060704@labn.net> <129001cfa6b4$331a4f00$994eed00$@olddog.co.uk> <53D01D4F.4000209@labn.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:28:41 -0400 Message-ID: From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram To: Lou Berger Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53d5e0511757e04fee73740 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/tTjopLSOpahkH8i3GNQr986UUMw Cc: CCAMP , draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:28:44 -0000 --bcaec53d5e0511757e04fee73740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not already been disclosed to the IETF. -Pavan (listed as a contributor) On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > That's helpful. Thank you, > Lou > > On 7/23/2014 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not already > been > > disclosed to the IETF. > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > --bcaec53d5e0511757e04fee73740 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not = already been=C2=A0disclosed to the IETF.

-Pa= van (listed as a contributor)
=

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lou Berger = <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
That's helpful. =C2=A0Thank you,
Lou

On 7/23/2014 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft that has not a= lready been
> disclosed to the IETF.

_____________________________= __________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

--bcaec53d5e0511757e04fee73740-- From nobody Wed Jul 23 19:37:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12D51A0A98 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 R8ctfG_KkppT for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0207.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4FB01A0151 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB042.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:37:21 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.153]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.153]) with mapi id 15.00.0990.007; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:37:21 +0000 From: Gert Grammel To: Lou Berger , "draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange Thread-Index: AQHPpmwgKxibQJURmE2eC6SXcb9Rkpuug0jw Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:37:20 +0000 Message-ID: <84313ce60b6543ada9af4212efbe1254@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 028256169F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199002)(13464003)(189002)(83322001)(33646002)(92566001)(76176999)(107046002)(15202345003)(19580395003)(31966008)(66066001)(85852003)(83072002)(46102001)(76482001)(74502001)(50986999)(2656002)(80022001)(77096002)(105586002)(86362001)(20776003)(106356001)(76576001)(64706001)(77982001)(99286002)(81542001)(21056001)(15975445006)(106116001)(74316001)(74662001)(19580405001)(101416001)(54356999)(99396002)(85306003)(81342001)(87936001)(79102001)(4396001)(95666004)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB042; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4McnRSBhqJtMeHx2-xPUyIC5vNo Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:37:27 -0000 "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Gert -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: 23 July 2014 13:49 To: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org; BRUNGARD, = DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-excha= nge Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see R= FCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the abo= ve by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until= a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOT= E: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which= encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an = IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or= discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please = see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wi= ki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your respons= e. _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Wed Jul 23 19:38:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B3A1A0AAF for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:38:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 i9quBSXwPF96 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F1D1A0151 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN1PR05MB044.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.154) by BN1PR05MB295.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.64.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:28 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB044.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:27 +0000 Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.153]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.153]) with mapi id 15.00.0990.007; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:27 +0000 From: Gert Grammel To: Lou Berger , "draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label Thread-Index: AQHPpmxTODeeAZ0DhkudIaDWzL9zipuug6gg Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:27 +0000 Message-ID: <859cc83239ec4b418c67da945d3f4879@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 028256169F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199002)(189002)(13464003)(79102001)(66066001)(21056001)(77982001)(92566001)(81542001)(87936001)(54356999)(31966008)(95666004)(106356001)(74502001)(2656002)(76482001)(77096002)(105586002)(4396001)(19580405001)(83322001)(50986999)(76576001)(76176999)(83072002)(15202345003)(101416001)(86362001)(46102001)(107046002)(99286002)(33646002)(81342001)(20776003)(74316001)(80022001)(74662001)(64706001)(85306003)(85852003)(15975445006)(106116001)(19580395003)(99396002)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB044; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2SqayMgVrsNo-NQShojNp4iGrMY Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:32 -0000 "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Gert -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: 23 July 2014 13:51 To: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org; BRUN= GARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstr= eam-label Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see R= FCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the abo= ve by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until= a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOT= E: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which= encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an = IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or= discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please = see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wi= ki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your respons= e. _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Wed Jul 23 20:31:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34B31A0A98 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 9q9WPqTSwi8v for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.advaoptical.com (mail.advaoptical.com [91.217.199.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 810961A030D for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MUC-SRV-MBX2.advaoptical.com ([172.20.1.96]) by muc-vsrv-fsmail.advaoptical.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6O3Up5x002589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:30:52 +0200 Received: from MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.95) by MUC-SRV-MBX2.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.17; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:30:50 +0200 Received: from MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com ([fe80::a129:5e1:23a1:8ba0]) by MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com ([fe80::cddd:2336:31f7:688d%18]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.017; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:30:50 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Brzozowski?= To: Lou Berger , "draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label Thread-Index: AQHPpmxTbgRnwaMNBEONfiT+9zJAgZuuklcg Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: <9b9bdb8e9daf49ce8c332866a475b326@MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com> References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Accept-Language: pl-PL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.27.50] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-07-23_07:2014-07-23,2014-07-23,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/6yUKXPO-UzBKTmAFDq6Ft7UA0yw Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:31:00 -0000 "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Pawel -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org; BRUN= GARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstr= eam-label Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see R= FCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If yes to the above, please state either: "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" or "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the abo= ve by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until= a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOT= E: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which= encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an = IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or= discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please = see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wi= ki/IntellectualProperty. Thank you, CCAMP WG Chairs PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your respons= e. _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 24 01:59:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5421A016A for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 EAy4ML0ATbnP for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A853C1A0141 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHN97452; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:59:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:59:24 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.76]) by SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:59:18 +0800 From: "Yemin (Amy)" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability/draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension Thread-Index: Ac+nHYy/bEsV2L8AQyiFHA+qjrCHbQ== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:59:17 +0000 Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D972D3@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.169.33.63] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D972D3szxema506mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AeHK8Md_BCxQ1SYrRBVBvBRD-z8 Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability/draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:59:36 -0000 --_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D972D3szxema506mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear CCAMPers, To continue the discussion in the meeting session, You're welcome to give f= urther comments on the draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability/draft-long-cca= mp-ospf-availability-extension. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-avai= lability-05.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-exte= nsion-04.txt To clarify the question on Availability advertisement, the Availability inf= ormation of the link is advertised in the ISCD, see the routing extension d= raft(draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension). Giovanni, could you give us your idea on how to use this capability on opti= cal links? Khuzema exchanged some ideas on priority at offline discussion. Will contin= ue the discussion on the list. Any other comments on welcome. BR, Amy(on behalf all co-authors) --_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D972D3szxema506mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear CCAMPers,

 

To continue the discussion i= n the meeting session, You’re welcome to g= ive further comments on the draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability/draft-lon= g-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension.

= http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-avai= lability-05.txt

http:/= /www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-= 04.txt

 

To clarify the question on Avai= lability advertisement, the Availability information of the link is adverti= sed in the ISCD, see the routing extension draft(draft-long-ccamp-ospf-avai= lability-extension).

 

Giovanni, could you give us you= r idea on how to use this capability on optical links?

Khuzema exchanged some ideas on= priority at offline discussion. Will continue the discussion on the list.<= o:p>

 

Any other comments on welcome.<= o:p>

 

 

BR,

Amy(on behalf all co-authors)

--_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461F73D972D3szxema506mbschi_-- From nobody Thu Jul 24 07:27:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5886D1A01FF; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:27:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 ay0DNCPBvxtH; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 033821A0383; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406212031; x=1407421631; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sdJrYMKLjvH2gmd/Ihl7o/bJUHbJh80or6AkHpGFfCk=; b=m/z7l01RDS8Oi5lh9HFLFzQEOo3E+V7RDbXN2e+wufsCXjKxMPSLdDMG dn/JUxh5y6UX2MbLinmyQGadnZlziHxMrgQQ5Eh44LdnFgqVYBz9kAZNz Ef1Bx5EYx9ThAFlIIUBUAZ3HVPMpmCmtGV1RDEbjIKdTa89g5YKpggHWf w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkFAIQX0VOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgmokgSkE0HgBgQ0Wd4QDAQEBBHkMBAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCIg6AcBoF4l+hHUnMQcGgyiBGAEEii+EGYhMmGGDSGyBAwc7 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,724,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="63627820" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 14:26:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OEQt86009846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:26:55 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:26:55 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" , Gregory Mirsky , "mpls@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: BFD Directed Path discussion Thread-Index: Ac+l26e8a77RkgmdSoKSZ/ImmV7YPAA91X3wABzCcmA= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:26:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B7F279F@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D34639107@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <315041E4211CB84E86EF7C25A2AB583D34639107@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.150] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/VobAI-p12ux3hp32xI28UYBS3A4 Cc: "draft-vgovindan-mpls-extended-bfd-disc-tlv@tools.ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "ccamp@ietf.org" , "draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] BFD Directed Path discussion X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:27:17 -0000 Hi Greg, Prasad, et al, Great to see this being discussed. Adding CCAMP and authors of both documen= ts. Speaking as a BFD WG co-chair ... > [1] draft-vgovindan-mpls-extended-bfd-disc-tlv > [4] draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-00 Regarding above 2 documents, details should be discussed further but the ne= eds of both look valid. However, we should not lead down the path of having= more and more BFD bootstrapping TLVs, but have/aim-for one TLV that allows= Sub-TLVs for extensions. > [2] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-06 Above document is dead. IETF State: Dead WG Document > [3] draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 Above document is already LC'ed (long ago). IETF State: Submitted to IESG for Publication=20 My best guess is that we do not want to disrupt/block [3] at this point. Question to authors of [1] and [4]. Are you interested to change LSP Ping bootstrapping only? If so, then it se= ems the authors of [1] and [4] need to get together and come up with a sing= le BFD bootstrapping TLV (given that [2] is dead). Thanks! -Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:35 AM > To: Gregory Mirsky; mpls@ietf.org > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Nobo Akiya (nobo) > Subject: RE: BFD Directed Path discussion >=20 > Hello Greg, >=20 > Thanks for your note, a couple of clarifications here: > >how this work is related to Extended BFD Discriminator TLV work? Both > >may be complementary, especially as parts of controlling BFD >session. > >Would welcome authors of Extended BFD Discriminator TLV to discussion > >and review draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext >and > >draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf drafts (authors are planning > >to bring them over the finish line) > a. Are you suggesting that we add sub-TLVs to convey the instance identif= ier > [1] inside the BFD configuration sub-TLV of both MPLS LSP ping [2] and th= e > RSVP TE OAM [3] messages? > b. Are you considering the addition of BFD reverse-path TLV [4] as well t= o > the LSP ping and RSVP-TE OAM messages? >=20 > Thanks > Prasad > [1] draft-vgovindan-mpls-extended-bfd-disc-tlv > [2] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-06 > [3] draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 > [4] draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-00 >=20 >=20 > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory > Mirsky > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:27 AM > To: mpls@ietf.org > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: BFD Directed Path discussion >=20 > Dear All, > on behalf of the authors of this work I thank you all who participated in= the > discussions Monday (BFD WG) and today (MPLS WG). Great comments and > suggestions - very excited by your interest in this work. > I've tried to capture summary of the comments and sketch possible ways to > address these: > . BFD Return Path TLV suitable for RFC 5880, what about S-BFD? > In order to maintain stateless character of S-BFDReflector, S-BFD control > packet may need to carry return path information. Need to discuss with > authors of S-BFD Base and start work on S-BFD over MPLS LSP with IP and > ACH encapsulations; . What would happen if Return Path conveyed to the > far-end BFD peer is not available? Ingress may send another BFD Return > Path in its TLV along with the same BFD Discriminator; . Can BFD Echo of = RFC > 5880 be used in conjunction with the BFD Return Path TLV over MPLS LSP? I= t > may be interesting as BFD Echo already allows for a payload but work on > proper handling and encapsulations of BFD Echo is needed. Besides, use of > BFD Echo over MPLS LSP may be limited to single segment LSPs thus S-BFD > may be more generic mechanism to have stateless far-end BFD peer; . how > this work is related to Extended BFD Discriminator TLV work? Both may be > complementary, especially as parts of controlling BFD session. Would > welcome authors of Extended BFD Discriminator TLV to discussion and > review draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext and draft-ietf-mpls-lsp- > ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf drafts (authors are planning to bring them over the > finish line) >=20 > Please excuse me if I've missed your question and please add it to this > discussion. >=20 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Regards, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Greg From nobody Thu Jul 24 11:09:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729FF1A0A9F for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 xmpdZPd3ioLz for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 728D21A01F2 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 1ab41d35.0.1826327.00-2324.4640851.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:08:34 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53d14ba22a1acf1c-18da38fd06aaae31792c4487ebe2471af3909379 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OI8X44014680 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:08:33 -0400 Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OI8Rou014576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:08:28 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAE.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.149]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:08:14 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.9]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.149]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:08:14 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Heads up - planned Area re-org Thread-Index: Ac+najyxskqghcgKQy+cI3GDZBHvRQ== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:08:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4610CE3F99F739429BD8B7B815FA3D8D@LOCAL> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Y+xPRGiN c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=yx0B-LOyGN0A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9] X-AnalysisOut: [zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=wISepe3uPClw8tP90esA:9 a=C] X-AnalysisOut: [juIK1q_8ugA:10 a=qQdmDwQ9R7kA:10 a=iLfeMUnt9mkA:10] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/rU4e2JO6J5dTM7rmvUueGVs-iVA Subject: [CCAMP] Heads up - planned Area re-org X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:08:54 -0000 FYI -=20 This afternoon in the rtgarea meeting, our ADs will be discussing their pla= n to reorg the Routing Area. It's our understanding, CCAMP will be impacted= . If interested, it's Session II, Ontario. Sent from my iPhone= From nobody Thu Jul 24 12:22:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274D51B283B for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:22:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 PjGzuvAqL5vG for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 766941B2844 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14752; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406229750; x=1407439350; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0CpA4I9joMc8mgQ73TnnnlA8gfKD24vYc+fl9+Q/FNw=; b=UpT8YCMsnmorWw+/1XZjtyD+6uvkNDabI7A3c/WY7uxkK3VYu9cxD4yM mjQLy0Jk33L2Xv+Z8UzzKUdo1UEuJRft53ZQzmBBL1w2XmQWuXXyKbLje JM0tyyGO6qihtChVw4gBt4iui4K/7YXNKxNatH9eLLOsgqcX0Mp4NWRmQ M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFALxb0VOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABOCoMOUlcEySwKh0UBgQ0Wd4QEAQEEAQEBJBMtBwsSAQgOKDcLJQIEDgUZiCkNvzgXjm8pCCsHhEYFjkuITIQfgVKSc4NIbIEFJBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,725,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="342633199" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 19:22:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OJMTVc019088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:22:29 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.47]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:29 -0500 From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" To: Lou Berger , "draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08 Thread-Index: AQHPp3Sb7YZiwmKPxEi5e4tk/EVqEQ== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:22:28 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <536D103A.1060304@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4826FF23C836F740938D1C3E78693974@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/3pN-bWlcp0tg2pdtVXcmUqeTigg Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:22:35 -0000 Hi Lou, Thank you Lou for the detailed review of the draft. It is nice to see the suggestions on how to fix/edit texts. Please see my replies inline .. On 2014-05-09 1:28 PM, "Lou Berger" wrote: >Hi, > >Here are some editorial and technical suggested changes to / comments on >draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08. Please >use/respond as you see >appropriate.=20 Sure, we will post a revised draft with the changes suggested. > >- The draft has a bunch of idnits issues which need to be fixed > see >hhttp://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=3Dhttp://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-cc= am >p-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08.txt > (I'll use line numbers from this URL below.) Fixed. > >- Line 18-20: > OLD > achieved by defining the new Association Types in (Extended) > ASSOCIATION object. In addition, RSVP extensions allow asymmetric > upstream and downstream bandwidths for the bidirectional LSP. > NEW > achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION and > in Extended ASSOCIATION objects. One of these types enables > independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs, while > the other enables single sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object > is also defined to enable a single endpoint to specify all the > parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided provisioning case. Updated the text. > >- Line 147 > s/an/the > s/object/objects Fixed. > >- Line 148: > Add new sentence: "This document refers to the [RFC4872] defined > ASSOCIATION objects and the [RFC6780] defined the Extended ASSOCIATION > objects collectively as the (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects." Added. > >- Lines 150-154 > OLD > This document specifies mechanisms for binding two reverse > unidirectional LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP. The > association is achieved by defining new Association Types in the > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object. RSVP extensions allow asymmetric > upstream and downstream bandwidths for the bidirectional LSP. > NEW > This document specifies mechanisms for binding two reverse > unidirectional LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP. The > association is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in > (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects. One of these types enables > independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs, while > the other enables single sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object > is also defined to enable a single endpoint to specify all the > parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided provisioning > case. For example, the REVERSE_LSP Object allow asymmetric upstream > and downstream bandwidths for the associated bidirectional LSP. Updated. > > >- You introduce the terms "single sided and double sided provisioning" in > this document. This is fine, but they shouldn't have a recursive > definition. I therefore suggest > - Line 180: s/side/endpoint > - Lines 118,190: s/sides/endpoints Fixed. > >- Line 183: drop "to this" Fixed. > >- Line 264: > OLD > New REVERSE_LSP object applicable to the single sided provisioning > New > A new REVERSE_LSP object for use in the single sided provisioning Updated. > >- Line 266-268 > OLD > the existing SENDER_TSPEC object is > added in the REVERSE_LSP object as a subobject in the initiating > LSP's Path message to specify the reverse LSP's traffic parameters. > NEW > a SENDER_TSPEC object can be > added in the REVERSE_LSP object as a subobject in the initiating > LSP's Path message to specify an different bandwidth for the reverse > LSP.=20 Updated. > >- Line 270 > Add at end of sentence: "by including other existing objects in a > REVERSE_LSP object." Added. > >- line 275 > s/inserts SENDER_TSPEC subobject/inserts a SENDER_TSPEC subobject for > use by LSP2 Updated. > >- Line 283/4 > s/asymmetric bandwidths independently/separate bandwidths, which may > or may not be identical. Updated. > >- Section 3.4 > - Perhaps it's worth starting out the section with an informative > description of how recovery is impacted before jumping into an > illustrative example. > >- Section 3.4.1, Lines 305-6 > Has anyone actually implemented what this says??? I don't think it > says what you intend. My understanding was that the recovery of each > LSP would be independent and based on the parameters signaled in their > respective path messages (same as 3.4.2), and both must use the > identical (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects as used in during initial LSP > establishment. The only difference (between single and double) is > that the egress of the initiating LSP would need to recognize that the > recovery LSP is tied to the existing reverse LSP. (Which really > should fall out of normal processing anyway.) > > (No matter what the processing rules need to be aligned with the > resulting text.) Removed the existing text. Added revised text as follows that matches your understanding. 3.4. Recovery LSP Overview Recovery of each unidirectional LSP forming the bidirectional LSP is independent [RFC5654] and is based on the parameters signaled in their respective Path messages. Recovery LSP association is based on the identical content of the (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects signaled in their Path messages during the initial LSP setup for both single sided and double sided provisioning. > >- Section 3.5 > As I read it, this section says mesh-group LSPs using > associated bidirectional use this (associated bidirectional) > document. is that your intent? If so, I think the section adds no > value and should be dropped. > > Alternatively, is it your intent to say that mesh-group LSPs MUST NOT > use corouted bidirectional signaling? If so, this should be explicitly > stated, discussed and agreed to by the WG. Agree, not needed. Removed the section. > >- Ordering of sections 4 & 5 > So section 4, which is called processing rules, starts with section > 4.1/4.2 which essentially defines formats. I think the document would > more readable if it started with the format definitions and then went > on to procedures. Yes this is certainly an editorial/style comment, > but I found the current formulation quite confusing. Also 5.2 is > completely redundant with 4.1. Agree, made the change. > >- Lines 352/4 shouldn't these be LSP not LSPs? Yes, fixed at multiple places. > >Section 4.3 - Lines 394-427 - Suggested reordering, edits and additions: > >(lines 394-39) > This document defines the processing for the association of two > unidirectional LSPs to form an associated bidirectional LSP. > Such association is based on the use of an (Extended) ASSOCIATION > object. >(lines 420-427) > The procedures related to the actual identification of associations > between LSPs based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects are defined in > [RFC6780]. [RFC6780] specifies that in the absence of Association > Type-specific rule for identifying association, the included > (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects in the LSPs MUST be identical in order > for an association to exist. This document adds no specific rules > for the new Association Types defined, and the identification of LSP > association therefore proceeds as specified in [RFC6780]. >(lines 411-418) > As described in [RFC6780], association of LSPs can be upstream or > downstream initiated, as indicated by (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects > in Path or Resv Messages. The association of bidirectional LSPs is > always upstream initialized, therefore the Association Types defined > in this document are only to be interpreted in Path Messages. These > types SHOULD NOT be used in ASSOCIATION objects carried in Path > messages and SHOULD be ignored if present. Only one >(lines 398-402) > To indicate an associated bidirectional LSP, an ingress MUST insert > an (Extended) ASSOCIATION object into the Path message of the > unidirectional LSP that is part of the associated bidirectional LSP it > initiates. If either Global Association Source or Extended > Association Address is required, then an Extended ASSOCIATION object > [RFC6780] MUST be inserted in the Path message. Otherwise, an > ASSOCIATION object MAY used. Only one (Extended) ASSOCIATION object > with the Association Types defined in this document SHOULD be > included by an egress in an outgoing Path message. (Extended) > ASSOCIATION objects with both single sided and double sided > Association Types MUST NOT be added in the same Path message. >(lines 404-409) > The ingress node MUST set the Association Type field in the > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object to "Single Sided Associated > Bidirectional LSPs" when single sided provisioning is used, and to > "Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs" when double sided > provisioning is used. >(new) > A transit node MAY identify the unidirectional LSPs of an associated > bidirectional LSP based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects, with the > Association Type values defined in this document, carried in Path > messages. Clearly, such associations are only possible when the LSPs > the transit node. As defined above, such associations are made per > the rules defined in [RFC6780]. > > Egress nodes which support the Association Types defined in this > document identify the unidirectional LSPs of an associated > bidirectional LSP based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects carried in > Path messages. Note that an ingress node will normally be the ingress > for one of the unidirectional LSPs that make up an associated > bidirectional LSP. When an egress node receives a Path message > containing an (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects with one of the > Association Types defined in this document, it MUST attempt to > identify other LSPs (including ones for which it is an ingress node) > with which the LSP being processed is associated. As defined above, > such associations are made per the rules defined in [RFC6780]. Added the revised text. > >- Section 4.3.1 Covers tear down, but what about setup and changes to > single sided provisioned reverse LSPs? This really needs to be > specified. > > How about moving & modifying 459/460 to the end of the previous > section: > > No additional processing is needed for Path messages with an > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object containing an Association Type field > of Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP. > > and then rename > > Section 4.3.1. Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP Processing > > and have it cover the setup, modification, and teardown cases. It > should include how the reverse LSP's objects are created from the > triggering LSP, both when the REVERSE_LSP object is present and when > it isn't. It should also cover/mention the possibility of when > modification to (or even a new) the originating LSP does or doesn't > change a previously established reverse LSP. > > Lines 505-509 also belong in this section as they relate to > single sided provisioning in general and not just REVERSE_LSP object > processing. > > -- Let me know if you get stuck and I'll try to help. Added a new section and moved the texts around. Please see the new revision and advise. New section is following. 5.3. Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP Setup and Teardown > >- Lines 429-440: move to the end of section 4.3.2 Done. > >- Line 432: s/MAY exist/can be present Fixed. > >- Line 433: s/MAY/can Fixed. > >- Line 452 (new paragraph): > When an LSP signaled with a Path message containing an (Extended) > ASSOCIATION object with an Association Type defined in this document > is torn down, the processing node SHALL remove the binding of the LSP > to any previously identified associated bidirectional LSP. Added. > >- Line 478: s/MAY/MUST > (how else could it control the reverse LSP) Fixed. > >- Line 480: s/LSP/LSP originating Fixed. >- Line 480/1: Drop "and to specify the reverse LSP's traffic parameters." Fixed. > >- Line 485/486: "A REVERSE_LSP object MUST contain at least one >subobject." > > What does it include if their are no objects to include? Added text as follows: If there is no subobject to be added in the REVERSE_LSP object, then the REVERSE_LSP object MUST not be added in the Path message. > >- Line 489: s/endpoint/egress Changed. > >- Line 492->501: reorder and revise: > > An egress node, upon receiving a Path message containing one or more > REVERSE_LSP objects MUST verify that the Path message contains an > ASSOCIATION or Extended ASSOCIATION object with the Association Type > set to "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs". If it does not, > the message MUST NOT trigger a reverse LSP. This verification > failure SHOULD NOT trigger any RSVP message but can be logged > locally, and perhaps reported through network management mechanisms. > > Once validated, the egress MUST use the subobjects contained in any > present REVERSE_LSP objects in the management of the reverse LSP > described in the previous section. Note that the contents of a > REVERSE_LSP object may change over the life of an LSP and such > changes MUST result in corresponding changes in the reverse LSP. > >- Section 4.4.1 - belongs in 4.3.1. Sure, btw, new section is following. 5.3. Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP Setup and Teardown > >- Line 544 > s/[ ... ] Fixed. > >- Line 579 s/subobjects/objects Fixed. > >- Section 6, this section should identify the registries impacted in > this document. See draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12 for a > recent example. Added. > >- Section 9.2 > I'd say 3473 is normative. Made the change. Thank you Lou. Appreciate the thorough review. Regards, Rakesh > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 24 12:33:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D971B2866 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 1pXnfPhX0bfs for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6821B2869 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1958; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406230394; x=1407439994; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vR6jAsJzKsdMzLib/t3TvUzqT79Zdd2tKIPhrXjYx4E=; b=DG/90vUl03T8f7zxlbVIbTrq6ZRawNyvpifbxaY7+w/MG5YYJ1nw/0JI 5wAk3JZTDc770DgR0GV46/7kssoYTeOJIXHBs7B5PUDeZMUdsQjEtT4EY OFI/wMuqB57eDb1vkYls/+JCNUegdeQ4D9Lg5oOlDbRqZX7tPHNqyN6pt k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFAMFe0VOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABYgw5SVwTJLAqHRQGBDhZ3hAQBAQQBAQE3NAsSAQg2NwslAgQBDQWIQg2/PBMEj0sHAoREBZs2lEWDSGyBRQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,725,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="63777014" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 19:33:13 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OJXD6P011182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:13 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.47]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:13 -0500 From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" , Lou Berger , "draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08 Thread-Index: AQHPa8UzrV5Nu6AqB0qKAOs67vHbb5s/tkIAgHBvKgA= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:12 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CALoq6AxrPCurChb5YFq4uB4NOI Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:17 -0000 Hi Deborah, Thank you for reviewing the document and providing the comments. Please see inline.. . On 2014-05-13 10:34 PM, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" wrote: >Hi Rakesh, > >A couple of additional comments: >- you swapped [Extended] to (Extended) in Section 3 (and later in the >document), whereas in Section 4, you removed the brackets. As Lou said >previously, this is not needed and it is confusing as it's not aligned >with RFC6780. Addressed as part of Lou's comments. Please let me know if latest revision is OK. >- Section 3 on provisioning and signaling procedures needs 2219 language. Section 3 is a definition of terms/overview/information kind of section and hence it does not use normative language. Section 4 and 5 are object formats and procedure/rules and are using normative language. >- you changed the text in the introduction, and now have MPLS-TP >requirement 14 twice listed. The previous version was better organized. >It seems the rationale for repeating requirement 14 was to add a new >paragraph describing Internet services applications. As this document is >on meeting the referenced MPLS-TP requirements, this is out-of-context. >Suggest going back to the previous version's introduction. Good catch. I revised the Introduction section to remove the duplication. It is good to see all the requirements listed in one section and hence the change. >- As Lou previously suggested, for the compatibility, you noted >compatibility aspects for intermediate nodes, it would be also helpful to >add RFC's 6780 processing rules for egress nodes not supporting the >Extended Association C-Type. New revision has the text. Please advise if it is OK. Many thanks, Rakesh > >Thanks, >Deborah > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 24 14:39:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDF51B2915; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:39:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 Zu3V5wp_Fh14; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5242B1B2904; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:39:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140724213942.27647.76352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:39:42 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/djN5TS_7JeufinG7BzP2ChBz3AI Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:39:44 -0000 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 : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs Authors : Fei Zhang Ruiquan Jing Rakesh Gandhi Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-07-24 Abstract: This document describes Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) extensions to bind two point-to-point unidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The association is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION and in Extended ASSOCIATION Objects. One of these types enables independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs on both sides, while the other enables single sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object is also defined to enable a single endpoint to specify all the parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided provisioning case. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jul 24 15:22:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14371A02E8 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:22:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 3aC9l_bockTp for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C275A1A01F2 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2368; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406240548; x=1407450148; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ybzv/nqCpWhEI4ezViCxqJ02H8vDS7GsqTksUREbUAs=; b=Do+OvguYaj3THIOfmxMhnYiBVi2Lc5lj3+4dSKaAgDQcjDdBHQ9ylEAS CIdLmGoNM9/88TxWXtTVXOzlJBmZ/gPqHlbp/iB8KP4rMHZrLD+5xcHRr JWfvfJKtoi1Upzgrsd5zCnyBOlLYioNtHtW+cTSQuybmIpAxlbjpb8sJk s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiIFAEWG0VOtJA2L/2dsb2JhbABYgw5SUwQEyS8Mh0MBgRAWd4QEAQEEAQEBNzQLEgEINjcLJQIEDgUJiDkIBb9EF45pEQEdMweERgWbNoFSknOCA4FFbIEMOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,727,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="342662223" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 22:22:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OMMR1l032211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:22:27 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.47]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:22:27 -0500 From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09.txt Thread-Index: AQHPp43Aw1z1WiBmGkC8Vi67FNZDSQ== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:22:27 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140724213942.27647.76352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/g2Er9-AqsbzjT9NmTyD3vy6Qpx4 Cc: "ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "jingrq@ctbri.com.cn" , "yang.fan240347@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:22:34 -0000 Hi WG, Chairs, This revision of the draft reflects changes to address comments from the chairs review (as per my previous email to the WG). Please let us know if you have further comments/suggestions. Thanks, Rakesh On 2014-07-24 5:39 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" 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 : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional >LSPs > Authors : Fei Zhang > Ruiquan Jing > Rakesh Gandhi > Filename : >draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2014-07-24 > >Abstract: > This document describes Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) > extensions to bind two point-to-point unidirectional Label Switched > Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The association > is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION > and in Extended ASSOCIATION Objects. One of these types enables > independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs on both > sides, while the other enables single sided provisioning. The > REVERSE_LSP Object is also defined to enable a single endpoint to > specify all the parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided > provisioning case. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-assoc >iated-lsp/ > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated- >lsp-09 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-ass= oc >iated-lsp-09 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 24 15:54:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1411B290C for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:54:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 r5-3bjj5yy5V for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C79B31B290F for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:54:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5574; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406242493; x=1407452093; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=POyq8S+6BjCXArYoLtpN1Ij3eMWCM0pRc4dcX4hy3iQ=; b=IXhC4PxphLAaRQ4rNeHUoFseEwgcsdjVCz6Obv80slOy0CLGPn+ueenI bxS3xkngnz5XlYINzUul1JU2J3B3DMIQhTMAAEUFNtubU3kqN1HorFxtM ZxNEp/FnJ/NB+64/0lNHx3WBIEWAzzrw5wiIkOOM7lTzAxRIcCOOWa5op 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFACuO0VOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABYgkdHUlcEx1iBY4dDgRAWd4QKeRIBDApqJwQBDQ6IOQ2/QxePS4RNBZs2gVKSc4IDgUVsAYFE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,727,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="342637775" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 22:54:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OMsqqT013805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:54:52 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.47]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:54:51 -0500 From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" To: Lou Berger , DEBORAH BRUNGARD Thread-Topic: Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09 Thread-Index: AQHPp5JGuhGawEct/EqR99XDeYGQxA== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFF706F9342E2rgandhiciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/JfjAyGIyHqON-gWITyYGNYifMcg Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09 X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:54:55 -0000 --_000_CFF706F9342E2rgandhiciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi CCAMP WG Chairs, Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code P= oints defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the W= G draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", draft-ietf= -ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09, we are requesting to CCAMP WG = chairs the early allocation of the following values: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-l= sp-09#section-6 6.1. Association Types New Association Types for ASSOCIATION and Extended ASSOCIATION Objects a= re defined in this document as follows: Value Type ----- ----- 4 (TBD) Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (D) 5 (TBD) Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (A) IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) S= ignaling Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-si= g-parameters). "Association Type" subregistry is included in this registry= , which will be extended and updated by this document. 6.2. REVERSE_LSP Object A new class type for RSVP REVERSE_LSP Object has been requested in the 1= 1bbbbbb range (TBD) with the following definition: Class Types or C-types (TBD), Value (TBD): REVERSE_LSP Object IANA maintains the "RSVP Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/a= ssignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). Class Names, Class Numbers= , and Class Types subregistry is included in this registry, which will be e= xtended and updated by this document. The main reason for this request is that this draft has been implemented in= a shipping product (using values from the draft and reserved range) but th= is can now lead to interoperability issues and we like to make sure we are = using standard values before software is largely deployed in networks and a= void interoperability issues. Thank you, Rakesh and co-authors --_000_CFF706F9342E2rgandhiciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9A1FA749397AC4499C55A4014E9EBFB8@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi CCAMP WG Chairs,

Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Stan= dards Track Code Points defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of th= e authors of the WG draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs",  draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rs= vpte-ext-associated-lsp-09, we are requesting to CCAMP WG chairs the early = allocation of the following values: 


6.1. Association Types
   New Association Types for ASSOCIATION and Exte=
nded ASSOCIATION Objects are defined in this document as follows:

   Value      Type
   -----      -----
   4 (TBD)    Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (D)
   5 (TBD)    Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (A)

   IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMP=
LS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignment=
s/gmpls-sig-parameters).  "Association Type" subregistry is inclu=
ded in this registry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

6.2.  REVERSE_LSP Object
   A new class type for RSVP REVERSE_LSP Object has been requested in the 1=
1bbbbbb range (TBD) with the following definition:

   Class Types or C-types (TBD), Value (TBD): REVERSE_LSP Object

   IANA maintains the "RSVP Parameters" registry (see http:/=
/www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). Class N=
ames, Class Numbers, and Class Types subregistry is included in this regist=
ry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

The main reason for this request is that this dra= ft has been implemented in a shipping product (using values from the draft = and reserved range) but this can now lead to interoperability issues and we= like to make sure we are using standard values before software is largely deployed in networks and avoid interoper= ability issues.


Thank you,
Rakesh and co-authors

--_000_CFF706F9342E2rgandhiciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Jul 25 06:14:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F31E1A028A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 LHSEAI-VABvR for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781441B2857 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6PDECHf003253 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:14:12 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-903d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.144.61]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6PDEAVT003225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:14:11 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'CCAMP'" References: <20140725131146.3409.26942.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140725131146.3409.26942.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:14:13 +0100 Message-ID: <048301cfa80a$55da6870$018f3950$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJhmY8Z6mXITp+OQ9DzyFY2Sl4M/ZqM4SQw Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20838.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.575-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--8.575-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: kNb5oX97tjhBWXAiV3JK6FaOpp/sV5nVt3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGHEN mofN9nrpYKXU5x6vEGNf3B3TCH0gIo+uMz+W0xT5GFMYlDUzwr0QC81tuAfPvioWOA6kYlc5kCP MGzqmoXsvzWNVJVTr6LaulzuD9a9lSPt6M7fYEDLvVbHa5Rs8t4N12XKYbuJLEd+K6O5Nt53C9u fxERkUlcI79s8R7+YFkP5P5tvlcUleJRw5hj8/hMTp/1v2r28TRtu4vtjjtzSfMhrMsoyv3A9lT AN4WxnxxExqCOWzGswOYLFb+3JssRgHZ8655DOPgxsfzkNRlfJeqSmMX0XSKdRnEQCUU+jzjocz muoPCq1w8+Y4MLuLC/nCC3G2aWqDk34J6ePdyGxioZ3AH/2FWLgqiOAj7tbKab96CpREvFbMGdy sG/4gUM1Oqow23qR2VGSVTswDZ4ivY4BboIs67rHhMA9aDpuh/WyINg5Mqdqespy8+E36a6T1zN JaG4aylExlQIQeRG0= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/taFTaK_O_WLzTbzsVDgbnIxhYjU Subject: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:14:20 -0000 Hi, This revision just adds the list of co-authors as presented by Fatai in = the first CCAMP meeting this week. My apologies for missing them off in the previous version. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: 25 July 2014 14:12 > To: Xian Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; George Swallow; George Swallow; = Adrian > Farrel; Nabil Bitar; John Drake; Xian Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; = Adrian Farrel; John > Drake; Dr. Nabil N. Bitar > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info- > exchange-06.txt >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, = draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06.txt > has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange > Revision: 06 > Title: Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange > Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks > Document date: 2014-07-25 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 55 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-interconnected-te- > info-exchange-06.txt > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info- > exchange/ > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info- > exchange-06 > Diff: = http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-farrel-interconnected-te-info- > exchange-06 >=20 > Abstract: > In Traffic Engineered (TE) systems, it is sometimes desirable to > establish an end-to-end TE path with a set of constraints (such as > bandwidth) across one or more network from a source to a = destination. > TE information is the data relating to nodes and TE links that is > used in the process of selecting a TE path. The availability of TE > information is usually limited to within a network (such as an IGP > area) often referred to as a domain. >=20 > In order to determine the potential to establish a TE path through = a > series of connected networks, it is necessary to have available a > certain amount of TE information about each network. This need not > be the full set of TE information available within each network, = but > does need to express the potential of providing TE connectivity. = This > subset of TE information is called TE reachability information. >=20 > This document sets out the problem statement and architecture for = the > exchange of TE information between interconnected TE networks in > support of end-to-end TE path establishment. For reasons that are > explained in the document, this work is limited to simple TE > constraints and information that determine TE reachability. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat From nobody Fri Jul 25 08:16:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348CD1A0316 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:16:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 eDIhBN5flVMW for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70C4B1A0314 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2070 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 2014 15:16:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2014 15:16:49 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id WlGk1o00Y2SSUrH01lGnhL; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:16:47 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=i9F2vSEbz7cA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=OIIBoqDthITG1PzKUIcA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=+60+vXTKLQ7MsIi6lAozSv8oYWRJwLe67AmCMd6YODs=; b=lepm8FmBeekIbGnndbQOj78qQLpVqigDNVmlIRXxu81WQ238ZKYxVy7PkOFi2DqUfIw3PrCo1yDm1m/AEwr0byeHWKskB4tcCwyLTjF3rPQGBrfiau0l7uUYyB1JoMlz; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:40989 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XAhEj-0007sL-U5 for ccamp@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:16:46 -0600 Message-ID: <53D274EF.6040704@labn.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:17:03 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CCAMP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/_s_fDDqul5tFWg3T-3M4M9KvCkQ Subject: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:16:53 -0000 All, As described in yesterday's routing area meeting, see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt, our ADs have initiated some changes that will impact CCAMP. As presented, technology specific work will remain in ccamp. The other details of these changes will be flushed out as part of the forthcoming charter drafting / revising. As our AD's have stated, it is important that these changes do not stop us from making progress. In this week's meetings we discussed actions related to a number of individual drafts that we don't expect to be impacted by the changes. In particular, we discussed planned updates, and subsequent adoption polls, of the following drafts: > 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info > 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp > 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib > 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry > 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 Please do your updates as discussed and we should be able to poll these documents, as planned. (Hopefully in time to allow for the discussed liaison to ITU-T.) Importantly, work on WG drafts should also continue as discussed/planned. We hope that this addresses the questions we received offline. If you still have questions, please feel free to send them to the list -- or privately if you prefer. Deborah and Lou From nobody Fri Jul 25 18:45:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E41A1A0035 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:45:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.752 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 XFCinqXs0w1C for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DFDF1A002E for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKO03080; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:45:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:45:26 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.13]) by SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:45:24 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: Lou Berger , "draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange Thread-Index: AQHPpmwh8N8MClxuB0KeieriN5RAvZuxmYlQ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:45:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA132.40807@labn.net> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/OOyGgz8MBG59m1aAmuMVh2E8bzE Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:45:32 -0000 Tm8sIEknbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4N Cg0KUmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IEND QU1QIFttYWlsdG86Y2NhbXAtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIExvdSBCZXJn ZXINClNlbnQ6IDIwMTTE6jfUwjIzyNUgMTk6NDkNClRvOiBkcmFmdC1mYXJyZWwtaW50ZXJjb25u ZWN0ZWQtdGUtaW5mby1leGNoYW5nZUB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzsgQlJVTkdBUkQsIERFQk9SQUgg QSAoQVRUTEFCUykNCkNjOiBDQ0FNUA0KU3ViamVjdDogW0NDQU1QXSBSZWdhcmRpbmcgSVBSIG9u IGRyYWZ0LWZhcnJlbC1pbnRlcmNvbm5lY3RlZC10ZS1pbmZvLWV4Y2hhbmdlDQoNCg0KQXV0aG9y cywgQ29udHJpYnV0b3JzLCAoQ0NBTVApDQoNCkFzIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIHByZXBhcmF0aW9uIGZv ciBXRyBkb2N1bWVudCBhZG9wdGlvbiBwb2xsOg0KDQpBcmUgeW91IGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIg dGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRvIGRyYWZ0IGlkZW50aWZpZWQgYWJvdmU/DQoNCiAgUGxlYXNlIHN0YXRl IGVpdGhlcjoNCg0KICAiTm8sIEknbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMg dG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCINCiAgb3INCiAgIlllcywgSSdtIGF3YXJlIG9mIElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxp ZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCINCg0KSWYgc28sIGhhcyB0aGlzIElQUiBiZWVuIGRpc2Nsb3NlZCBp biBjb21wbGlhbmNlIHdpdGggSUVURiBJUFIgcnVsZXMNCihzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAz NjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpPw0KDQpJZiB5ZXMgdG8gdGhlIGFib3ZlLCBw bGVhc2Ugc3RhdGUgZWl0aGVyOg0KDQogICJZZXMsIHRoZSBJUFIgaGFzIGJlZW4gZGlzY2xvc2Vk IGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugd2l0aCBJRVRGIElQUiBydWxlcyINCiAgb3INCiAgIk5vLCB0aGUgSVBS IGhhcyBub3QgYmVlbiBkaXNjbG9zZWQiDQoNCklmIHlvdSBhbnN3ZXIgbm8sIHBsZWFzZSBwcm92 aWRlIGFueSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGRldGFpbHMgeW91IHRoaW5rDQogIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLg0KDQpJ ZiB5b3UgYXJlIGxpc3RlZCBhcyBhIGRvY3VtZW50IGF1dGhvciBvciBjb250cmlidXRvciBwbGVh c2UgYW5zd2VyIHRoZQ0KYWJvdmUgYnkgcmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHJlZ2FyZGxl c3Mgb2Ygd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91IGFyZQ0KYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IElQUi4g IFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBub3QgYWR2YW5jZSB0byB0aGUgbmV4dA0Kc3RhZ2UgdW50aWwg YSByZXNwb25zZSBoYXMgYmVlbiByZWNlaXZlZCBmcm9tIGVhY2ggYXV0aG9yIGFuZCBsaXN0ZWQN CmNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yLiAgTk9URTogVEhJUyBBUFBMSUVTIFRPIEFMTCBPRiBZT1UgTElTVEVEIElO IFRIRSBET0NVTUVOVC4NCg0KSWYgeW91IGFyZSBvbiB0aGUgQ0NBTVAgV0cgZW1haWwgbGlzdCBi dXQgYXJlIG5vdCBsaXN0ZWQgYXMgYW4gYXV0aG9yIG9yDQpjb250cmlidXRvciwgd2UgcmVtaW5k IHlvdSBvZiB5b3VyIG9ibGlnYXRpb25zIHVuZGVyIHRoZSBJRVRGIElQUiBydWxlcw0Kd2hpY2gg ZW5jb3VyYWdlcyB5b3UgdG8gbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBJRVRGIGlmIHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgSVBS IG9mDQpvdGhlcnMgb24gYW4gSUVURiBjb250cmlidXRpb24sIG9yIHRvIHJlZnJhaW4gZnJvbSBw YXJ0aWNpcGF0aW5nIGluIGFueQ0KIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHJlbGF0ZWQg dG8geW91ciB1bmRpc2Nsb3NlZCBJUFIuICBGb3IgbW9yZQ0KaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIHBsZWFzZSBz ZWUgdGhlIFJGQ3MgbGlzdGVkIGFib3ZlIGFuZA0KaHR0cDovL3RyYWMudG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcv Z3JvdXAvaWVzZy90cmFjL3dpa2kvSW50ZWxsZWN0dWFsUHJvcGVydHkuDQoNClRoYW5rIHlvdSwN CkNDQU1QIFdHIENoYWlycw0KDQpQUyBQbGVhc2UgaW5jbHVkZSBhbGwgbGlzdGVkIGluIHRoZSBo ZWFkZXJzIG9mIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBpbiB5b3VyDQpyZXNwb25zZS4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkNDQU1QIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0K Q0NBTVBAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vY2Nh bXANCg== From nobody Sat Jul 26 08:00:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471951A02E5 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:00:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 vsEBW-FSuILs for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F1A1B280B for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:59:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2602; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406386795; x=1407596395; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qsdepX/gGSDiSQCUtvqZYa+WX9JJHnyw4Tmjrw9ob3k=; b=XuOjd17TTL2BR/Lm+3x5oeBNGD9ZXnlkhq7ZYeu4stkOI/BIyn9NWKCq 3xEqGsOHQ7OInz4tpXs3mGd2yLQ6LuCIJBiPm48OF/eCNBJP/GXJbsO3C XV7lo55H2BEdBuh8gyiMNaRiEajK9bGG14vJK1lBsJ7oQagblF6NLsDYv g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAFTB01OtJV2R/2dsb2JhbABYgw5SVwTLTQyHQwGBChZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBaxcGAQgOAwMBAlYLHQgCBAESCYg5Db4QF45pEQFXBoRDBZZghGmBUpJ5g0lsAYELOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,735,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="64258581" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2014 14:59:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6QExr4t023174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:59:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:59:52 -0500 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: Lou Berger , CCAMP , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Thread-Index: AQHPqBt/Uetlrac2z0WF/9LgoLXU+JuyhugA Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:59:52 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <53D274EF.6040704@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <4E127ABC3F79404D9F80E454AD949D0F@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8C33jIvag1nK3jD9l6s24oG4Mt0 Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:00:00 -0000 Hi Lou, Deborah, Adrian and the WG: The following two documents listed in the email has been updated based on the comments received from Chairs, ADs and the WG. Pointer to the latest version of the drafts are provided. 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry =3D=3D=3D> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregi stry-01.txt 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 =3D=3D=3D> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-03.t xt=20 These are very slim documents to get code points for ODU1e, ODU3e1, and ODU3e2. We believe there is support from the WG in this work to start adoption poll.=20 Any comments and a follow-up adoption poll will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Regards =8A Zafar -----Original Message----- From: "lberger@labn.net" Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:17 AM To: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg > >All, > As described in yesterday's routing area meeting, see >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt, our >ADs have initiated some changes that will impact CCAMP. As presented, >technology specific work will remain in ccamp. The other details of >these changes will be flushed out as part of the forthcoming charter >drafting / revising. > >As our AD's have stated, it is important that these changes do not stop >us from making progress. In this week's meetings we discussed actions >related to a number of individual drafts that we don't expect to be >impacted by the changes. In particular, we discussed planned updates, >and subsequent adoption polls, of the following drafts: > >> 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info >> 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp >> 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib >> 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry >> 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 > >Please do your updates as discussed and we should be able to poll these >documents, as planned. (Hopefully in time to allow for the discussed >liaison to ITU-T.) > >Importantly, work on WG drafts should also continue as discussed/planned. > >We hope that this addresses the questions we received offline. If you >still have questions, please feel free to send them to the list -- or >privately if you prefer. > >Deborah and Lou > > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Tue Jul 29 12:06:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F881B2954 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 zHXKnu8oEllF for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8E31A0AC9 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406660783; x=1407870383; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4syU6fpFVxGJg7cxTgm5fZmqbXYkbdeUsCU9vs5ji4E=; b=IoLjCqOWZa/75WIXjGVKzHgb/l10/weGFi4zVtS+JnYowLUzQT8WSl22 TfvbK8BVblI2YDaqe175T6pIShXMXmhEScOvGyJJDeF5vVlPjHd+xspnx nU5MfxuqfxpwxWH7BZJBfzT7UxYIy6iIVLMdrlnS2Kl6ESzv2cBdMCdtu w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFALnv11OtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgw6BLdM4AYEQFneEBQEEOj8SASoUQiYBBA4NiDq/QBePGzGDNoEbBbAdg0mCMQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,758,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="343631389" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2014 19:06:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6TJ6NCR029124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.65]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:06:23 -0500 From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" To: "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling Thread-Index: Ac+rXdFAjNn+1/4gRVGf5hQhUm4haQ== Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.186] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/oH6GWUrVGt7AxE5BaZYdMxA7QNA Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:25 -0000 Authors, A couple of things on the IANA section in this doc. I'm not actually sure w= hat the right thing to do is in either case - perhaps the Chairs could offe= r guidance if need be? First: in the new "Values for Wavelength Assignment Method field in Wavelen= gthSelection Sub-TLV" registry, would it be worth specifying a small range = of values for Experimental Use (or any of the other categories, for that ma= tter)? Note that I don't have any proposal for what might be done with thes= e; I'm just thinking that they may come in useful in the future. Second: the new Path-error subcodes in this doc have been assigned values a= lready (not even marked as "suggested". Have you got early allocation of th= ese? Or should they become TBD until IANA formally assigns them? Just wonde= ring, since we're going through the same stuff with the SRLG-collection dra= ft... Cheers Matt=20 From nobody Wed Jul 30 07:21:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC411A00F6; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 0-Pejs55Nw11; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C6D1A0108; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140730142054.10064.31246.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:20:54 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/61_IF4-82Piz6nzcLDufS64OpFE Cc: ccamp mailing list , ccamp chair , RFC Editor Subject: [CCAMP] Protocol Action: 'GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13.txt) X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:21:17 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Ethernet OAM Configuration' (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-13.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext/ Technical Summary The GMPLS controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) work extended GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the establishment of Ethernet LSPs. IEEE Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) specifies an adjunct OAM flow to check connectivity in Ethernet networks. CFM can be also used with Ethernet LSPs for fault detection and triggering recovery mechanisms. The ITU-T Y.1731 specification builds on CFM and specifies additional OAM mechanisms, including Performance Monitoring, for Ethernet networks. This document specifies extensions of GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol to support the setup of the associated Ethernet OAM entities of Ethernet LSPs, and defines the Ethernet technology specific TLVs based on the GMPLS OAM Configuration Framework. This document supports, but does not modify, the IEEE and ITU-T OAM mechanisms. Working Group Summary No issues. Good support by the Working Group. Document Quality There have been no public statements of implementation, though significant interest was expressed by the Working Group. Further research indicted that there had been two prototypes done in vendor labs based on earlier versions of the I-D. Personnel Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Area Director. From nobody Wed Jul 30 15:25:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9E11A0295 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.067 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 hr0qkWHZAkGG for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D125A1A02E4 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23335 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 2014 22:25:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2014 22:25:43 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id YsRf1o0082SSUrH01sRiwQ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:25:42 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=QpUaPE1CezIA:10 a=oxZIVayYhpcA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=TMobNrhan7iT7SLZLVIA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Y/YqRIc0CpSVgeA5NwxJwLbnjmY0wiljy9h1QbQKdr8=; b=HLWuxjEFMKvj+K4/yDDcTUf/dkQhv2m0genXVrZ8/dWRJXfPIyDAxb97soS6sYXCr7IHWMbZpnBnX2Ogs0Ii5XITyzxkpMfWRhZ6WLQ2jshfXX2PaF80gQCOr2WPWlQL; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:47393 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XCcJY-0001CY-AS; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:25:40 -0600 Message-ID: <53D970FF.6040206@labn.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:26:07 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZasMoYStcPhsZyIQ7pJz8OyS16w Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:25:46 -0000 Hi Zafar, Considering you weren't at the meeting you got close to the discussed actions. From the raw minutes: > Lou: I suspect you mean "Standards Action" rather than "Unassigned" > Lou: Any comments from our AD - expect there are two areas where he > may comment > Adrian: The Experimental range looks large, also perhaps "Expert > Reivew" is better than "Experimental" > Adrian: the G.Supp43 values should be under Expert Review rather > than Experimental, as they're going to be around for too long to be > really experimental > Lou: Agreed, not sure why we (AD&Chair) focused on Experimental at > the last meeting, but Expert Reviews is clearly a better choice. > Authors, please make the change to allow for Expert review, consider > shrinking the experimental range and remove the private range. The > document should indicate that the expert (for the expert review) will > be appointed by the CCAMP WG chairs. > > Lou: The prior document should also request "Expert Review" values. So looking at the documents I think you have some actions to do before we can poll for adoption. Also, strictly speaking you no longer need to change the registry values, but rather just the registry assignment policy. This is all I'd personally recommend to do, but if you want to both change the registry policy and add an experimental range, this is your prerogative. To fix *just* the assignment problem (and keep things simple), I think you can do the following to draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry: 2. IANA Considerations IANA maintains the an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. The registry currently is defined to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226]. This document directs that both Standards Action and Specification Required policies, as defined in [RFC5226], be applied to this subregistry. When needed, the Designated Expert shall be identified by a CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, by the IESG. and Update the intro and abstract text to be aligned with this text. For draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 - I think trying to maintain alignment with the text of draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry provides no value, adds unnecessary dependent details, and should be dropped from the document. (Or do the extra work of updating it to match the changes and then rev this document every time the other changes.) - You no longer need to describe the range or suggest specific values. Unless I missed something, I believe that's it. Lou On 7/26/2014 10:59 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > Hi Lou, Deborah, Adrian and the WG: > > The following two documents listed in the email has been updated based on > the comments received from Chairs, ADs and the WG. Pointer to the latest > version of the drafts are provided. > > 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry ===> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregi > stry-01.txt > 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 ===> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-03.t > xt > > > These are very slim documents to get code points for ODU1e, ODU3e1, and > ODU3e2. We believe there is support from the WG in this work to start > adoption poll. > > Any comments and a follow-up adoption poll will be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks > > Regards Š Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "lberger@labn.net" > Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:17 AM > To: "ccamp@ietf.org" > Subject: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg > >> All, >> As described in yesterday's routing area meeting, see >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt, our >> ADs have initiated some changes that will impact CCAMP. As presented, >> technology specific work will remain in ccamp. The other details of >> these changes will be flushed out as part of the forthcoming charter >> drafting / revising. >> >> As our AD's have stated, it is important that these changes do not stop >> us from making progress. In this week's meetings we discussed actions >> related to a number of individual drafts that we don't expect to be >> impacted by the changes. In particular, we discussed planned updates, >> and subsequent adoption polls, of the following drafts: >> >>> 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info >>> 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp >>> 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib >>> 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry >>> 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 >> Please do your updates as discussed and we should be able to poll these >> documents, as planned. (Hopefully in time to allow for the discussed >> liaison to ITU-T.) >> >> Importantly, work on WG drafts should also continue as discussed/planned. >> >> We hope that this addresses the questions we received offline. If you >> still have questions, please feel free to send them to the list -- or >> privately if you prefer. >> >> Deborah and Lou >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CCAMP mailing list >> CCAMP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > From nobody Thu Jul 31 00:02:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510661A036F for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 T8Am-NL4Pxoj for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7B561A0377 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:02:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1373; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406790145; x=1407999745; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xpqZJ1VoFArQ+DQ1h3pU9tL1Z+8nHgmVhJowXhlAdlM=; b=DDAFTmII8vTzWJmgYZ+pqqUcrRmWSm1Dd0OCxlKM7LQ3x0LF953GBNGn 0inyEvzJ5oQNQQ7+wARpCGX2d9fArRzugkFOdfSTLdWFA/sfqpv1E/VXf 7Sy/ujeXqiLv/dYu0SrcVhqfciuiU6KWyKreXPRTy+Ndk4/DLvxb9bb7w M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYFABTp2VOtJA2G/2dsb2JhbABZgw6BHwoE0lEBgQUWd4QEAQEDAXkFCwIBCEYyJQEBBA4FiDoIvDkXjxkzB4MvgRsFm2SUU4NJbIFF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,770,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="344070802" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2014 07:02:24 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6V72N0M017057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:02:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 02:02:23 -0500 From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" Thread-Topic: IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling Thread-Index: Ac+rXdFAjNn+1/4gRVGf5hQhUm4haQBWXquA Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:02:23 +0000 Message-ID: <85939864-F2CC-4B39-909E-5B0DAB08A20B@cisco.com> References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.148.212.24] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/kDwxXXJLrNxW12atO-ojMV6LvZk Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:02:26 -0000 Hi Matt, a couple of initial answers ... On 29 Jul 2014, at 21:06, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrot= e: > Authors, >=20 > A couple of things on the IANA section in this doc. I'm not actually sure= what the right thing to do is in either case - perhaps the Chairs could of= fer guidance if need be? >=20 > First: in the new "Values for Wavelength Assignment Method field in Wavel= engthSelection Sub-TLV" registry, would it be worth specifying a small rang= e of values for Experimental Use (or any of the other categories, for that = matter)? Note that I don't have any proposal for what might be done with th= ese; I'm just thinking that they may come in useful in the future. GM> Very good comment. Btw, during ietf Young and me we were editing to pre= pare next version 9, our working copy has room for some experimental code p= oints.=20 >=20 > Second: the new Path-error subcodes in this doc have been assigned values= already (not even marked as "suggested". Have you got early allocation of = these? Or should they become TBD until IANA formally assigns them? Just won= dering, since we're going through the same stuff with the SRLG-collection d= raft=85 GM> Agree=20 Much thx for your comments, let Young and/or chairs to complete with additi= onal info. Cheers G >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Matt=20 From nobody Thu Jul 31 04:12:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC70E1A0AB1 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LYzwwrs4ST1L for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B913A1A0AAD for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10616 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jul 2014 11:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2014 11:12:06 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id Z5Bz1o0062SSUrH015C2iZ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:12:05 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=A68hd6JcikYA:10 a=MKMuUdMyT54A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=I0CVDw5ZAAAA:8 a=3NE4dHWJQhJQzSHuaLAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=H93TdC9Y26XRl8GbFJho/0JjhIXBGh9FE7aFuK7G0d4=; b=bpGAfC0syQ5xXelTS2MMw/YdTAHfpfKQAeN/+uvkmzXHsxwrtQCsysOhIBLE42N5sk5v2ASV3CfFYSTJz+KbkR+3wmSeSiGbzSgHkDwVmpvst1K09GZugBQUQ9WAntpF; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:38258 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XCoHA-0001Wi-Cx; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:12:00 -0600 Message-ID: <53DA24A5.4070003@labn.net> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:12:37 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/vZLXarQbkoqRYhw7x_gYDqXBTws Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:12:15 -0000 On 7/29/2014 3:06 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote: > ... > A couple of things on the IANA section in this doc. I'm not actually sure what the right thing to do is in either case - perhaps the Chairs could offer guidance if need be? > > First: in the new "Values for Wavelength Assignment Method field in WavelengthSelection Sub-TLV" registry, would it be worth specifying a small range of values for Experimental Use (or any of the other categories, for that matter)? Note that I don't have any proposal for what might be done with these; I'm just thinking that they may come in useful in the future. > ... Matt, (Since you asked...) I'm inclined to use the same approach I suggested for draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry, i.e., Standards Action and Specification Required policies. It's fairly straight forward and flexible. I also know of no cases where Experimental has actually been used by CCAMP or in GMPLS. The recent discussion came the closest and, as mentioned in Toronto, clearly isn't the right answer. Looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml you'll see various policies have been used/suggested, including the combination I mention. Perhaps we, as a WG, should agree, on default policy for the GMPLS registry... Thank you for raising the topic. Lou From nobody Thu Jul 31 06:37:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8A21B2805 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:37:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JDzmI_h6Y6qy for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0140.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB2541B280A for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.141) by BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:37:27 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) by BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:37:27 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Lou Berger , "draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label Thread-Index: AQHPpmxTidIeIkhqBkie7qF/161Wv5u6PDWg Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:37:26 +0000 Message-ID: <1527b636a7d54b6eb45e4f4745860fd0@BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 0289B6431E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51704005)(199002)(13464003)(189002)(377454003)(83072002)(20776003)(83322001)(15202345003)(81342001)(74502001)(4396001)(64706001)(19580395003)(80022001)(76482001)(79102001)(92566001)(85852003)(86362001)(77982001)(2656002)(46102001)(19580405001)(54356999)(107046002)(87936001)(31966008)(74662001)(76576001)(101416001)(21056001)(95666004)(85306003)(106356001)(106116001)(76176999)(50986999)(81542001)(74316001)(105586002)(99286002)(33646002)(15975445006)(66066001)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB562; H:BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/otNZnS9ok4wuD7tYpFEzLvxoUcU Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:37:41 -0000 "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:51 AM > To: draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org; > BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned- > upstream-label >=20 >=20 > Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP) >=20 > As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll: >=20 > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? >=20 > Please state either: >=20 > "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" > or > "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" >=20 > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see= RFCs > 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? >=20 > If yes to the above, please state either: >=20 > "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules" > or > "No, the IPR has not been disclosed" >=20 > If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think > appropriate. >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the a= bove > by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of= any > relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until a > response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE= : > THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT. >=20 > If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules w= hich > encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an= IETF > contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or di= scussion > related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RF= Cs > listed above and > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. >=20 > Thank you, > CCAMP WG Chairs >=20 > PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your respo= nse. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 31 06:59:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738561B281E for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 dybdUyIS43WS for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D992D1B2819 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C6E8D23B1F61E; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:59:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from destgsu0709.de.alcatel-lucent.com (slsv7at.de.alcatel-lucent.com [149.204.245.107]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s6VDxb11015019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:59:38 +0200 Received: from [149.204.107.17] (DESTGN0H466262.de.alcatel-lucent.com [149.204.107.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by destgsu0709.de.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6VDxZLU001266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:59:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53DA4BC7.6040309@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:59:35 +0200 From: Dieter Beller Organization: Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lou Berger , draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label@tools.ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" References: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53CFA18B.7050606@labn.net> X-SubSwitch: [CCAMP]; [CCAMP] Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Ib_qgM_i4O04YeXIzZstahoBaeY Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Regarding IPR on draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:59:45 -0000 
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"


Thanks,
Dieter
On 23.07.2014 13:50, Lou Berger wrote:
Authors, Contributors, (CCAMP)

As part of the preparation for WG document adoption poll:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above?

  Please state either:

  "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
  or
  "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

  "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
  or
  "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
  appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR.  This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
contributor.  NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT.

If you are on the CCAMP WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules
which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of
others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any
 contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR.  For more
information, please see the RFCs listed above and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
CCAMP WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
From nobody Thu Jul 31 08:17:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959F61A00E2 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 2wbxkAZM5N4W for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B3691A0089 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:17:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=421; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406819832; x=1408029432; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=cPbPolmg3S1HSOtBNvf+GteIBcbYQd9cETXt/qjh/cs=; b=M+K/yyyhLwt/pLcLXKY/1aZoIJE4KI82NzKO6nb/j3CY1mEQqXRm0nkT 9SJYFL4eXNvK1M6aU8ctHtvuMjODlwPwTf2GApQbJzxORIlRUUAMLKVsM QsuyCriSx9NFnxr2mPLc/nLDmTfSXoC+f1rVEdndsWjq/jaKbG3pcafQw U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMJACJd2lOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SWAPLLIdLAYEHFneEBAEBAQIBOj8FCwIBCA4UFBAyJQEBBA4NAYgxCA2+UBePGzEHgy+BGwWwN4NJgjE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,772,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="65506337" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2014 15:17:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6VFHA0I026060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:17:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.65]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:17:10 -0500 From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" To: Lou Berger Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling Thread-Index: Ac+rXdFAjNn+1/4gRVGf5hQhUm4haQBfG1WAAAIKhDA= Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:17:09 +0000 Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A05659@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <53DA24A5.4070003@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <53DA24A5.4070003@labn.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.190] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZbL89KZ56tGfVppSdZKsYkPCmEc Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:17:12 -0000 Lou, > Looking at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig- > parameters.xhtml > you'll see various policies have been used/suggested, including the > combination I mention. Perhaps we, as a WG, should agree, on default > policy for the GMPLS registry... I think that might be a good idea. It would be useful to have some solid gu= idelines for this sort of thing. Cheers Matt From nobody Thu Jul 31 20:25:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E4F1A00D2 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:25:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 ExTEbrfpe6aO for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EE391A0143 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1853 invoked by uid 0); 1 Aug 2014 03:25:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2014 03:25:53 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id ZMRo1o00A2SSUrH01MRr84; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 03:25:51 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=A68hd6JcikYA:10 a=MKMuUdMyT54A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=I0CVDw5ZAAAA:8 a=fACzdzQf_cTd3N8naUQA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=1QvL6Sxj0m9XaGFJXKk+mT1W1vGWTSgENmaRsTnWbkg=; b=uhNyLIRUlF3vHvPTJ1jEZ483pKgdnyodySBXHiYUD1lkILNCuR+m33zJGxOBeYG8GLMO42WZnjRd9ilWUd9OEqoQ1EmY2yaGIrjozHVjhtKMolf2Wntw0e05U5UQZ0da; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:52527 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XD3TZ-0005HC-Fg; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:25:49 -0600 Message-ID: <53DB08DD.9010800@labn.net> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:26:21 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <53DA24A5.4070003@labn.net> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A05659@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A05659@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/kjlnwqZSD2YCJLcxIn2hKyU-8c0 Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 03:25:56 -0000 On 7/31/2014 11:17 AM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote: > Lou, > >> Looking at >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig- >> parameters.xhtml >> you'll see various policies have been used/suggested, including the >> combination I mention. Perhaps we, as a WG, should agree, on default >> policy for the GMPLS registry... > I think that might be a good idea. It would be useful to have some solid guidelines for this sort of thing. Something to discuss once we have a WG document on the topic ;-) Lou > > Cheers > > Matt > From nobody Thu Jul 31 20:30:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE96D1A014E for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 k_NK_qOEPDR6 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77DD81A0143 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHU45966; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 03:30:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.130) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 04:30:51 +0100 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.145]) by dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.198]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:30:41 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" , "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling Thread-Index: Ac+rXdFAjNn+1/4gRVGf5hQhUm4haQB2s9xg Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 03:30:40 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C07BEA@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.154.137] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MrpKT3c5DvrLz9LEes_fbIyMMp0 Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 03:30:56 -0000 Hi Matt, Thanks for your comments. As Giovanni expressed, in the upcoming revision h= as designated a place for experimental values. And your suggestion on "TBD"= for some error subcodes make sense to me as well. There are apparently par= allel efforts for similar codes.=20 Thanks, Young -----Original Message----- From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hartley (mhar= tley) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:06 PM To: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling Authors, A couple of things on the IANA section in this doc. I'm not actually sure w= hat the right thing to do is in either case - perhaps the Chairs could offe= r guidance if need be? First: in the new "Values for Wavelength Assignment Method field in Wavelen= gthSelection Sub-TLV" registry, would it be worth specifying a small range = of values for Experimental Use (or any of the other categories, for that ma= tter)? Note that I don't have any proposal for what might be done with thes= e; I'm just thinking that they may come in useful in the future. Second: the new Path-error subcodes in this doc have been assigned values a= lready (not even marked as "suggested". Have you got early allocation of th= ese? Or should they become TBD until IANA formally assigns them? Just wonde= ring, since we're going through the same stuff with the SRLG-collection dra= ft... Cheers Matt=20 _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp From nobody Thu Jul 31 23:34:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44AE1A041B; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:34:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 0bySTQmUPGaE; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359F01A040F; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:34:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140801063415.23560.87113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:34:15 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/QhMNHcd_AluXRctCga-oMMW7OE0 Cc: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:34:17 -0000 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 : RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information Authors : Fatai Zhang Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Dan Li Cyril Margaria Matt Hartley Zafar Ali Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2014-07-31 Abstract: This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE link formed by a LSP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jul 31 23:42:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5CF1A0411 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3PfNdekMS4g0 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (smtpjc.telefonica.com [81.47.204.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 550BB1A0270 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpjc.telefonica.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525382D0274 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:41:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESTGVMSP102.EUROPE.telefonica.corp (unknown [10.92.4.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpjc.telefonica.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40BDE2D025A for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:41:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.92.5.139) by tls.telefonica.com (10.93.6.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:41:53 +0200 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) by AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.90.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:41:51 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.234]) by AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.234]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:41:51 +0000 From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS To: CCAMP Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHPrVK3u82Gn9h6UEeNNHf8ti6s8Ju7CaOA Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140801063415.23560.87113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140801063415.23560.87113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [74.213.206.62] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 029097202E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(377424004)(479174003)(51704005)(199002)(37854004)(92726001)(76482001)(77096002)(101416001)(105586002)(85852003)(83322001)(106116001)(74502001)(83072002)(19580395003)(2656002)(54356999)(83506001)(99396002)(106356001)(64706001)(74662001)(87936001)(15202345003)(4396001)(95666004)(50986999)(46102001)(66066001)(15975445006)(20776003)(107046002)(86362001)(21056001)(36756003)(107886001)(79102001)(110136001)(81342001)(76176999)(19580405001)(81542001)(80022001)(77982001)(85306004); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB104; H:AMSPR06MB104.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <608D39596280E1449FB8E3261D2329C6@eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com X-TM-AS-MML: No Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/7Z_RNkWYJ2XvoKKo6NzO8P4W-ZM Subject: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:42:02 -0000 Dear CCAMPers, We have posted a new version of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect. The changes in this version are: - Completed security section addressing the pending comment from Lou=B9s review. - Clarified in IANA section which values are requested for Early allocation- Authors believe the document is ready for last call. Best Regards, Oscar El 01/08/14 02:34, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" escribi=F3: > >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 : RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG >Information > Authors : Fatai Zhang > Oscar Gonzalez de Dios > Dan Li > Cyril Margaria > Matt Hartley > Zafar Ali > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2014-07-31 > >Abstract: > This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation > Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic > collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE > link formed by a LSP. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-0= 6 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, pu= ede contener informaci=F3n privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclus= ivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario ind= icado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilizaci=F3n, divulgaci=F3n y/o= copia sin autorizaci=F3n puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislaci= =F3n vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo = comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=EDa y proceda a su destrucci=F3n. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidenti= al information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named = above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are= hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this co= mmunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission = in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you h= ave received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinat=E1rio= , pode conter informa=E7=E3o privilegiada ou confidencial e =E9 para uso ex= clusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se n=E3o =E9 vossa senhoria o des= tinat=E1rio indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utiliza=E7=E3o, div= ulga=E7=E3o e/ou c=F3pia sem autoriza=E7=E3o pode estar proibida em virtude= da legisla=E7=E3o vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe = que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destru= i=E7=E3o