Subject: [CCAMP] Comments WSON info model & encoding

From: Giovanni Martinelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:46:29 +0100

Hi Greg/Young,

here the first issue after the ccamp meeting. Two simple comments coming 
discussion:

1. BNF definitions. Looks like the same definition appears either within 
info-model  and within the encoding documents.  It would be nice having 
just one place for the definiton (::=). I would probably suggest the 
info model for it.

2. The encoding documents (both general and wson specific) defines the 
sub-TLVs for the  the information coming from info model (which is good) 
and also they suggest  which is the top-level TLVs to be used.
To me, this last part would be  probably more appropriate for 
solutions-specific documents (ospf / isis related extentions).

I would appreciate other opinions as well.

Cheers,
G

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:38:07 -0800

Hi Giovanni, sounds good. See detailed comments below.  Any contrary 
opinions from the WG?  Otherwise we will make the changes discussed 
below before the next IETF meeting.

Cheers

Greg B.
On 11/9/2010 10:46 PM, Giovanni Martinelli wrote:
>
> Hi Greg/Young,
>
> here the first issue after the ccamp meeting. Two simple comments 
> coming discussion:
>
> 1. BNF definitions. Looks like the same definition appears either 
> within info-model  and within the encoding documents.  It would be 
> nice having just one place for the definiton (::=). I would probably 
> suggest the info model for it.
--> Concur. In reviewing RFC4202, "Routing Extensions in Support of 
GMPLS", no use is made of BNF. The use of BNF in the info model was as 
an aid in understanding structure and grouping of information. The info 
model is informational, and hence keeping the BNF in that document would 
also keep us from having two ways (BNF and subTLV sturctures) of 
describing the same thing in the standards track encoding documents.
> sub-TLVs for the  the information coming from info model (which is 
> good) and also they suggest  which is the top-level TLVs to be used.
--> Removing this sounds fine to me. It was text that was written prior 
to the OSPF related drafts and would appear redundant and we don't want 
to have to worry about whether it matches what is finally resolved in 
the protocol specific routing drafts.
>
>
> Cheers,
> G
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

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