RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

[Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pete,

 

This is an “inheritance” from GMPLS, where supporting a single priority equals not supporting priorities. If you don’t want to support priorities you don’t want your traffic to be preempted…hence priority 0.

 

>Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations.

For me it’s ok not to say anything on that.

 

Thanks

Daniele 

 

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext.all@xxxxxxxx; ccamp@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

 

Hi Daniele,

Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in section 4.1.1 on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest.

On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

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.

So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 01000000 or 00100000? If so, why is that?

For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.

Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations.

pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478