ietf-ccamp-wg / ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis

CCAMP WG repository for ietf-layer0-types-ext
3 stars 3 forks source link

Frequency Range clarification #46

Closed ggalimba56 closed 2 years ago

ggalimba56 commented 2 years ago

If the below definition is referred to the portin od spectrum assigned to a Media Channel (or OTSi)

  grouping frequency-range {
    description
      "The parameters that define a frequency range.";
    leaf lower-frequency {
      type frequency-thz;
      mandatory true;
      description
        "The lower frequency boundary of the
        frequency range.";
    }
    leaf upper-frequency {
      type frequency-thz;
      must '. > ../lower-frequency' {
        error-message
          "The upper frequency must be greater than the lower
          frequency.";
      }
      mandatory true;
      description
        "The upper frequency boundary of the
        frequency range.";
    }
  }

instead of using the frequency range as high - low frequency, I'd prefer tu use "m" * slot granularity In addition there is not the Media channel definition that is a topic part of L0 (in ROADMs)

Clarify in DT and fix

italobusi commented 2 years ago

2022-05-19 Daniel, Dieter, Gabriele, Jorge, Julien, Italo, Sergio

Need to clarify that this grouping is used to define a portion of the spectrum (e.g., a band) that does not match a frequency slot width (i.e., not using the n and m attributes).

OLD

    description
      "The parameters that define a frequency range.";

NEW

    description
      "This grouping defines the lower and upper bounds of a frequency range (e.g., a band).

        This grouping SHOULD not be used to define a frequency slot which SHOULD be defined
        using the n and m values instead.";
sergiobelotti commented 2 years ago

I would also add reference "RFC7698: GMPLS Flexi-Grid Framework";

that contains the definition of Frequency Slot based on nominal central frequency and slot width (and then n,m parameters)

sergiobelotti commented 2 years ago

Call on 05/24/22: we all agree to go for the modification proposed. AP: @sergiobelotti @italobusi : to modify the description during next PR with the description proposed above at https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext/issues/46#issuecomment-1131636870