Subject: [CCAMP] WG draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-13 - Suggested modification on processing capabilities encodings

From: "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:29:51 +0200

Hi Young and Greg,

Please find a proposed modification to paragraph 5.6 of the draft that simplifies the Resource Block Information TLV.
This modification consists in removing the number of resources infromation from the Resource Block Information.
I believe (and I'm not the only one) that it is is simpler to part the description of resources from the number of devices
that comply to the resource description (namely here the resource block info sub-TLV). This gives more simplicity
and avoids all the possible interpretations provided in my email related both to the info and encoding drafts.

regards,

Pierre

5.6 Processing Capabilites sub-sub-TLV

   This sub-sub-TLV contains a list of resource block processing
   capabilities.

   Type := Processing Capabilities List

   Value := A list of Processing Capabilities Fields

   The processing capability list sub-sub-TLV is a list of capabilites
that can be achieved through the targetted resource:

     1. Regeneration capability

     2. Fault and performance monitoring

     3. Vendor Specific capability

   Note that the code points for Fault and performance monitoring and
   vendor specific capability are subject to further study.

   5.6.1. Processing Capabilities Field

   The processing capability field is then given by:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Processing Cap ID    |          Length               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Possible additional capability parameters depending upon    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :   the processing ID                                           :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   When the processing Cap ID is "regeneration capability", the
   following additional capability parameters are provided in the sub-
   TLV:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      Regen Cap                |          Length = 8           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  T  | C |                 Reserved                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where T bit indicates the type of regenerator:

      T=0: Reserved

      T=1: 1R Regenerator

      T=2: 2R Regenerator

      T=3: 3R Regenerator

   Where C bit indicates the capability of regenerator:

      C=0: Reserved

      C=1: Fixed Regeneration Point

      C=2: Selective Regeneration Point

   Note that when the capability of regenerator is indicated to be
   Selective Regeneration Pools, regeneration pool properties such as
   ingress and egress restrictions and availability need to be
   specified. This encoding is to be determined in the later revision.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:55:16 +0200

Pierre,
	I think all would find it helpful if you use the RFC editor's standard
approach to proposing text changes, i.e.:

    Please send the changes in this format:

      Section # (or indicate Global)

      OLD:
      old text

      NEW:
      new text

Much thanks,
Lou

On 3/27/2012 9:29 PM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:
> Hi Young and Greg,
>  
> Please find a proposed modification to paragraph 5.6 of the draft that
> simplifies the Resource Block Information TLV.
> This modification consists in removing the number of resources
> infromation from the Resource Block Information.
> I believe (and I'm not the only one) that it is is simpler to part the
> description of resources from the number of devices
> that comply to the resource description (namely here the resource block
> info sub-TLV). This gives more simplicity
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:39:02 +0200

Lou,

I am happy helping the readability of the suggested changes. See below

Regards,

Pierre

Section 5.6: Processing Capabilites sub-sub-TLV

UNCHANGED:

OLD:
   The processing capability list sub-TLV is a list of WSON network
   element (NE) that can perform signal processing functions including:

     1. Number of Resources within the block

     2. Regeneration capability

     3. Fault and performance monitoring

     4. Vendor Specific capability

NEW:
   The processing capability list sub-sub-TLV is a list of capabilites
that can be achieved through the refered resources:

UNCHANGED:

      0                   1                   2                   3

OLD:
   When the processing Cap ID is "number of resources" the format is
   simply:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Processing Cap ID    |          Length = 8           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                  Number of resources per block                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
[erased old content]

UNCHANGED:

      0                   1                   2                   3

      T=0: Reserved

      T=1: 1R Regenerator

      T=2: 2R Regenerator

      T=3: 3R Regenerator

      C=0: Reserved

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lou Berger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 27 mars 2012 23:55
À : PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [CCAMP] WG draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-13 - Suggested modification on processing capabilities encodings

Pierre,
	I think all would find it helpful if you use the RFC editor's standard approach to proposing text changes, i.e.:

      OLD:
      old text

      NEW:
      new text

Much thanks,
Lou

On 3/27/2012 9:29 PM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:
> description of resources from the number of devices that comply to the 
> resource description (namely here the resource block info sub-TLV). 
> This gives more simplicity and avoids all the possible interpretations 
> provided in my email related both to the info and encoding drafts.
>  
> regards,
>  
> Pierre
>  
>

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:07:08 +0000

Pierre,

The number of Resources within the block can be safely removed from the Processing Capabilities Sub-sub-TLV as we can infer from the Resource Pool Accessibility TLV. 

This will be updated in the next revision. Thanks.

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:39 AM
To: Lou Berger
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-13 - Suggested modification on processing capabilities encodings

Lou,

Regards,

Pierre

UNCHANGED:

OLD:

NEW:

UNCHANGED:

      0                   1                   2                   3

OLD:

      0                   1                   2                   3

UNCHANGED:

      0                   1                   2                   3

      T=0: Reserved

      T=1: 1R Regenerator

      T=2: 2R Regenerator

      T=3: 3R Regenerator

      C=0: Reserved

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lou Berger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 27 mars 2012 23:55
À : PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [CCAMP] WG draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-13 - Suggested modification on processing capabilities encodings

Pierre,

      OLD:
      old text

      NEW:
      new text

Much thanks,
Lou