Hi Pete,
We’re getting there.
Please see in line for further explanation.
Thanks a lot
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: lunedì 6 febbraio 2017 18:38
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele(_dot_)ceccarelli(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ccamp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07
On 6 Feb 2017, at 7:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
Hi Jari, Pete,
First of all thanks for the accurate review.
All the nits/editorial comments are correct and will be fixed.
Regarding the minor issue:
4.1.1:
The figure is a bit confusing: There might not exist a "Max Slot Width at
Priority
7" if bit 7 is clear in the Priority field, correct?
Perhaps it would be better to just show that as "..." or "Max Slot Width at
Priority n". The thing is, it might only be a single value, followed by the
padding, so having the second value in there might be misleading. (Perhaps
similar constructs are used in other MPLS docs and people will understand. But
it took me a while to figure it out.)
it was difficult to express in the figure the fact that only some of the
priorities are advertised. As you said it could be one, two or any number up to
8.
What about a single field (with ~ on the borders to indicate that it can have
variable length) saying "Max Slot Width at Prio n" and then say that 16 bits
are used for each prio and when an odd number of priorities is used the field
is padded to line up with multiples of 32 bits?
Yes, I think that would make more sense to me.
[DC] OK
The discussion of Priority was very confusing for me. In the third sentence, do
you mean, "A bit is set (1) corresponding to each priority represented in the
sub-TLV, and clear (0) for each priority not represented in the sub-TLV"? I
don't
understand the MUST/MUST NOT as you had it. And I don't understand the
last sentence at all. Are you trying to say, "The leftmost bit (priority level
0)
MUST be set, and priority level 0 MUST be advertised in the sub-TLV."?
Otherwise, I don't get it.
It means that if the priority field is set to e.g. 10010010 in the following
you would find 4 fields indicating respectively: Max Slot Width at Priority 0,
Max Slot Width at Priority 3, Max Slot Width at Priority 6 and since they are 3
a 16 bits padding to 32 bits.
OK, then I think my sentence is clearer for that: "A bit is set (1)
corresponding to each priority represented in the sub-TLV, and clear (0) for
each priority not represented in the sub-TLV."
[DC] Agree. We’ll use your text.
It also means that at least one priority must be advertised (i.e. priority
00000000 is not allowed).
I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). It's the
end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local policy, SHALL be at
priority level 0." What does that mean?
[DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be priority 0.
For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a
different value, but that shouldn’t be done.
I don't understand the MAY in the last sentence. Does that mean that I MAY
also set it to the highest possible nominal central frequency supported by the
link? I don't understand what that sentence is trying to tell me.
An example is provided in section 4.1.2, where the available range goes from -2
to +8 but the range supported by the link goes from -9 to +11. The sentence
means that even if not available it could be possible to indicate also n=-9 to
indicate the starting point of the range supported by the link.
" In this example, it is assumed that the lowest nominal central
frequency supported is n= -9 and the highest is n=11. Note they
cannot be used as a nominal central frequency for setting up a LSP,
but merely as the way to express the supported frequency range."
I'm ok with dropping the sentence.
I think dropping the sentence would make the most sense.
[DC] Ok for me
Thank you
Daniele
Thanks for considering my suggested changes.
pr
-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net]
Sent: lunedì 6 febbraio 2017 12:32
To: Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com<mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>>
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
ccamp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ccamp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07
Thanks for your review, Pete. Authors, any comments?
Jari
--
Pete Resnick
http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478