Subject: [CCAMP] comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-06

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:53:13 +0200

Hi,
	I have some comments on the following text:

  5.5. Implications for Control Plane Backward Compatibility

   Assume [RFC4328] has been deployed to control the OTN networks
   supporting [G709-V1], control plane backward compatibility needs to
   be taken into consideration. Scenarios for backward compatibility are
   described as follows:

   o  Legacy OTN devices supporting [G709-V1] may run control plane
      protocol defined in [RFC4328];

   o  Legacy OTN devices supporting [G709-V1] may also support new OTN
      control plane characterized in this document after control plane
      updating;

   o  New OTN devices supporting [G709-V3] always support new OTN
      control plane characterized in this document;

   o  New OTN devices SHOULD support falling back to [RFC4328] for
      interworking scenarios.

   Based on these scenarios, control plane backward compatibility SHOULD
   be taken into account when interworking between the new control plane
   characterized in this document and the legacy control plane defined
   in [RFC4328].

   A new Switching Capability type is required for control of [G709-V3]
   in the routing and signaling to enable the backward procedure.

I'm having a hard time parsing the intent of this section. I'd like to
ask some questions at the higher level first, rather than focusing on
specific text.  (Which we can move on to once we have a common
understanding.)

I suspect your intent is to say (stated informally):

1) There may be networks that are composed of nodes that only support
the legacy OTN approach.  Such nodes and networks are out of scope of
this and the other OTNv3 documents.  -- Correct?

2) There may be networks that are composed of nodes that all support the
new OTNv3 control plane documents.  Such nodes and networks have no
control plane backwards compatibility issue.  -- Correct?

3) That there may be networks composed of a mixture of nodes, some  that
support the legacy RFCs and others that support the new OTNv3 control
plane documents. For these, the new routing and signaling documents must
support this case.   -- Correct?

4) Based on the routing and signaling drafts, I think this document
should also describe the approach taken by those documents at a (high)
sufficient level for them to deliver a consistent solutions.

>From the ospf document see that support for both old and new routing
approaches MUST be supported. Signaling can use that information to
determine when to start signaling using old/new mode.  Also there are
cases there that information won't be available, so signaling still has
to handle the case where a new message arrives at a legacy node.  -- Is
this correct?

Again, once we have common understanding, we can worry about wordsmithing.

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:01:35 +0000

Hi Lou,

Yes, correct for all questions. I think we have the common understanding.

Let's refine the text, :-)

Thanks

Fatai

________________________________________
发件人: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] 代表 Lou Berger [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年3月28日 23:53
到: CCAMP
Cc: [email-masked]
主题: [CCAMP] comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-06

Hi,

Thanks,
Lou
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:18:51 +0200

Excellent.  Will you send proposed revised text for review?

Lou

---

From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:24:08 +0000

Hi Lou,

OK, I can do that. 

If you can help us to provide some proposed text, we will appreciate a lot, :-)

Thanks

Fatai

________________________________________
发件人: Lou Berger [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年3月29日 17:18
到: Fatai Zhang
Cc: CCAMP; [email-masked]
主题: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-06

Lou