search

ietf-ccamp-wg / draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang

Other
2 stars 3 forks source link

Boundary between Layer 0 and Layer 1 #58

Open italobusi opened 2 years ago

italobusi commented 2 years ago

Since 3R modelling is in the scope of this document, I think that the layer 1 functionality of the transponders are also in the scope of this document.

For example, the inverse multiplexing and FEC are layer 1 functionality of the transponders which are in the scope of this document.

Maybe it is a terminology issue. IMHO, the aggregation (multiplexing) of client layer signals is performed by muxponders and not by transponders. A muxponder can be modelled as a layer 1 functionality providing the aggregation (multiplexing) of client layer signals and a transponder functionality. In this case, I agree that the aggregation (multiplexing) of client layer signals is outside the scope of this document.

I do not recall if these issues have been all addressed in the 3R model (need to double check).

My suggestion is to keep the text as it is now and to track this as an issue for discussion after IETF 112.

_Originally posted by @italobusi in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/pull/94#discussion_r734500969_

italobusi commented 2 years ago

As discussed during yesterday's call, the text description needs further improvements to clarify the boundary between what is in the scope (layer 0) and what is out of scope (layer 1)

layer0-boundary-00.pptx

italobusi commented 2 years ago

Slides updated with more detailed examples of transponders and muxponders:

layer0-boundary-01.pptx

danielkinguk commented 1 year ago

Need to discuss how/what to model/map for Layer 0 and Layer 1, including the types, functions and capabilities, at each specific layer. This may include: 3R, multiplexing, FEC, encryption, et al. This should not preclude implementation options. It would be useful to look at higher-layer examples (L1/L2/L3). This description/advice would then be documented in a specific document, which is currently undecided - could be existing I-D or new I-D.

aguoietf commented 7 months ago

Issue is tracked and discussed in RFC9093-bis #81

manzoro commented 6 months ago

Update the slide with info on OpenZR+ multiplexing and pointer to OpenZR+ MSA layer0-boundary-02.pptx