Thanks. With regard to the non-byte-aligned payload, I am still
slightly confused. I can well believe this is clear to those working in
the area. But... If the payload is not byte aligned, and bytes are
sent, how does the receiver know how many bits in the last byte to ignore?
Thanks,
Joel
On 10/18/2024 1:44 PM, Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thank you for your review! Let me try to comment/answer here
_1) RSV/FRG:_
Good catch. We indeed forgot to mention explicitly that payload
fragmentation is not used by PLE. I changed the text for FRG to
These bits MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the
receiver as PLE does not use payload fragmentation
And similar to RFC4553
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4553#section-4.2) I also
added the following sentence to the PW demultiplexing section
The total size of a PLE packet for a specific PW MUST NOT exceed
the path MTU between the pair of PEs terminating this PW.
_2) byte aligned payload_
For Ethernet and Fibre Channel services, PLE is carrying 66B/64B
encoded data for example. So the payload carried by PLE is not always
in bytes. The basic payload of PLE is designed to be completely
structure agnostic without any need to align the PLE packet generation
with the incoming payload data.
For OTN services
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pals-ple-08#section-4.5)
the CE-bound IWF function must extract the extended ODUk frames from
the received PLE payloads. Based on our discussions with leading OTN
technology vendors, this "search function" is easier to implement
under the assumption that the PLE payload is byte aligned hence we
defined this dedicated PLE payload type which is byte aligned for OTN
services.
I hope this addresses your comments. The changes with respect to 1)
are included in the -09 version I just uploaded to data tracker
Regards
Christian
On 11.10.2024, at 16:34, Joel Halpern via Datatracker
<nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-ple-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2024-10-11
IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues: N/A
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 5.2.1 defining the PLEA Control Word describes two pairs
of bits,
one pair called RSSV and described in the usual way for describing
reserved
bits. A second pair is called FRG and is described more teresely but
appears to be simply more reserved bits. It is unclear why these two
fields are separated, and why the wording is slightly different
between
them.
Section 6 desccribes the basic payload and the byte aligned
payload. The
description makes it look like there are two different forms.
Thinking
about it, the payload is always in bytes, so the sender will fill
bits from
the source until it has filled the fixed number of bytes. SO what
is the
difference between 6.1 and 6.2?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
