RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

[Jonathan Lang <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

<snip>
> 
> I did think it more expeditious to refer people to the OIF
> communication which already contained the desired document rather
> than going through the mechanics of generating a new one.
agreed.

> After
> all, I think the majority of key participants are OIF memebers
> as well.
I have access to the OIF website, but I can't speak for others.

> 
> I will copy Kam Lam, the Rapporteur of Q.14/15 on this email so
> that he is aware of your interest. The next meeting of Q.14/15 is
> not until our full Study Group 15 meeting from 20-31 January in
> Geneva, but it is also possible for communication statements to
> be formulated and approved via email correspondence when necessary
> between meetings.
thanks.

-Jonathan

> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > 
> > Stephen,
> >   May I suggest that you add routing & discovery to the
> > communication/liaison statement to the IETF. Since most of 
> the OIF work is
> > based on protocols developed in the IETF, it seems odd that IETF
> > participants need to go through the OIF to see these documents.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:30 AM
> > > To: Razdan, Rajender
> > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; John Drake; 
> [e-mail]; 'Brungard,
> > > Deborah A, ALASO '; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > > There are some rules about distributing ITU-T documents
> > > outside of ITU-T.
> > > Generally, the only way to distribute draft text to non-ITU-T
> > > members is by
> > > sending them via communication/liaison statements to
> > > organizations outside
> > > of ITU-T.
> > >
> > > G.7714.1 has not been officially communicated to IETF ccamp,
> > > but it has
> > > been communicated to OIF in which many of you 
> participate. To obtain a
> > > copy of the document from the communication statement to 
> OIF, start by
> > > pointing your browser to:
> > > ftp://sg15opticalt:[e-mail]/tsg15opticaltransport
> > > /COMMUNICATIONS/index.html
> > >
> > > From there, choose the link for Optical Internetworking 
> Forum (OIF).
> > > Acknowledge the ITU-T copyright.
> > > Choose the communication statement dated 11 October 2002 entitled:
> > > "Signaling, Routing, and Discovery work in Q.14/15".
> > >
> > > There are links in this communication for the download of
> > > several documents,
> > > the last of which is the latest draft of G.7714.1.
> > > Regards,
> > > Steve Trowbridge
> > > Vice-Chairman, ITU-T Study Group 15
> > >
> > > "Razdan, Rajender" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam,
> > > it is easy to
> > > >   miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription
> > > addresses! ]
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan,
> > > >
> > > >     I welcome the idea of making the draft of G.7714.1 
> more freely
> > > > available. I don't know, however, if there are any ITU 
> rules about
> > > > distributing draft documents. One possibility, which I 
> have often
> > > > seen used in the past, is to send the latest version as a
> > > contribution
> > > > to a T1X1.5 meeting. These contributions are freely 
> available to the
> > > > public. Noting that we do have an upcoming T1X1.5 
> meeting, I'll go
> > > > ahead and do that.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Rajender Razdan
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:28 PM
> > > > To: Razdan, Rajender; John Drake; [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '; 'ccamp '
> > > > Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > >
> > > > Rajender,
> > > >   May I suggest that the authors of the G.7714.1 draft make
> > > it available to
> > > > the wider community. As it is still a draft with most of
> > > the discussion
> > > > amongst authors and not on a public mailing list, most
> > > people have not had a
> > > > chance to look at the latest version which is significantly
> > > different from
> > > > the one discussed at the Experts meeting in Ottawa.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Razdan, Rajender [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:55 AM
> > > > > To: John Drake; [e-mail]
> > > > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '; 'ccamp '
> > > > > Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John,
> > > > >
> > > > >     I don't subscribe to the ccamp mailing list, and so
> > > > > haven't had a chance
> > > > > to comment on the LMP drafts till now. The discussion on
> > > > > J0/J1 issues was
> > > > > forwarded to me by Jonathan Sadler. As the editor of Draft
> > > > > G.7714.1, I was
> > > > > quite distressed to read about your understanding that none
> > > > > of the work aimed
> > > > > at G.7714.1 is compatible with the T.50 requirement. I don't
> > > > > know how you got
> > > > > that absolutely wrong impression. In fact, compatibility with
> > > > > the T.50
> > > > > requirement, as dictated by ITU Rec. G.707, has been the most
> > > > > important
> > > > > consideration for us in our defining J0/J1/J2 discovery
> > > > > mechanisms. The current
> > > > > draft of G.7714.1 clearly states this. I FULLY agree with
> > > > > Jonathan Sadler that
> > > > > the LMP work should also be consistent with this requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Rajender Razdan
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:24 AM
> > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '; 'ccamp '
> > > > > Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > >
> > > > > The various Test transport mechanisms that are currently
> > > defined in
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh were added in response to
> > > > > input from
> > > > > various carriers and organizations such as the OIF.  The
> > > fact that the
> > > > > individual carriers have different requirements for the
> > > > > contents of the
> > > > > various SDH/SONET overheads is also consistent with my
> > > > > reading of Deborah's
> > > > > recent e-mail on this topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since one of the transport mechanisms, the J0/J1/J2 trace
> > > correlation,
> > > > > allows the transport of T.50 characters, I think 
> we're done wrt
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrt draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap, it's my understanding
> > > > > that none of the
> > > > > work aimed at G.7714.1 is compatible with the T.50 
> requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:23 PM
> > > > > To: John Drake
> > > > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '; 'ccamp '
> > > > > Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John -
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you forgot what my original message said.  It stated:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > As mentioned at the CCAMP meeting, the SDH trace
> > > bytes (J0/J1/J2)
> > > > > > > have restrictions not only on the length of a trace
> > > message and on
> > > > > > > the bits usable in a octet, but also on whether the
> > > payload in the
> > > > > > > message uses printable ASCII characters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The requirements for J0/J1/J2 (found in G.707) 
> state the trace
> > > > > > > message payload must utilize the printable characters
> > > defined in
> > > > > > > T.50.  Two current LMP drafts
> > > > > (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh &
> > > > > > > draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap) utilize encodings 
> that are not
> > > > > > > consistant with this requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > I fail to see what is incorrect with the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > While draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh does describe
> > > methods for
> > > > > J0/J1/J2 that fall within the requirements of G.707, it
> > > also includes
> > > > > methods that don't.  This situation SHOULD be resolved to
> > > provide the
> > > > > greatest amount of interoperability while reducing the
> > > number of trace
> > > > > methods that need to be implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad to see we agree on the fact that
> > > > > draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap
> > > > > only provides methods that fall outside the requirements of
> > > > > G.707.  This
> > > > > situation MUST be resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Sadler
> > > > >
> > > > > John Drake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wouldn't it be more precise to say that it is an issue with
> > > > > > draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap, and that it is NOT 
> an issue with
> > > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:49 PM
> > > > > > To: John Drake
> > > > > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '; 'ccamp '
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap does not support Trace
> > > Correlation.
> > > > > > Therefore, it is an issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan Sadler
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Drake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it the case that if one chooses to use J0/J1/J2 Trace
> > > > > Correlation,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > Jonathan Sadler's issue is a non-issue?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Lang
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:56 AM
> > > > > > > To: 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO ';
> > > '[e-mail] ';
> > > > > > > 'ccamp '
> > > > > > > Subject: FW: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Deborah,
> > > > > > >   Thanks for the note. The option that Jonathan mentioned
> > > > > is one of a
> > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > options we define for Jx. We defined other options to
> > > > > > > interwork with existing equipment without requiring
> > > any changes to
> > > > > > > existing encodings (this would support both C1 and T.50
> > > > > requirements).
> > > > > > > These mechanisms are defined in Section 3.1 as 
> J0/J1/J2 Trace
> > > > > > > Correlation. We welcome additional comments from you
> > > and others at
> > > > > > > T1X1.5/ITU.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO
> > > > > > > To: [e-mail]; ccamp
> > > > > > > Sent: 11/21/2002 5:22 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Jonathan says, the current G.707 is using T.50. And
> > > > > there's more.
> > > > > > > Example, for J0, one currently needs to support:
> > > > > > > - previously defined C1 (repeating one-byte)
> > > > > > > - T.50 (with format of G.707)
> > > > > > > - no J0 (for equipment not supporting).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So already we have defined multiple applications for this
> > > > > byte. Not to
> > > > > > > say, there will be not any new ones. Even ITU knows,
> > > it never is
> > > > > > > final;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For supporting LMP's use, we need to understand the
> > > > > scenarios of use
> > > > > > > (sounds familiar to T1X1.5 participants?) e.g. 
> intra-operator,
> > > > > > > inter-operator, applied for equipment installation
> > > verification or
> > > > > > > service connection verification, etc. And hardware
> > > implications.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, G.831 defines multiple uses depending if inter
> > > > > or intra -
> > > > > > > including for intra-operator, support of routing/path
> > > > > set-up (and G.831
> > > > > > > was done years ago).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suggest, for timing, as a T1X1.5 meeting is dec 4-dec 5,
> > > > > contribute the
> > > > > > > proposal for the meeting and we can start the discussion.
> > > > > The next ITU-T
> > > > > > > meeting is in January. If the LMP editors need help
> > > on our T1X1.5
> > > > > > > process, just ask.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Deborah
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:59 PM
> > > > > > > To: ccamp
> > > > > > > Subject: J0/J1 encoding issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As mentioned at the CCAMP meeting, the SDH trace
> > > bytes (J0/J1/J2)
> > > > > > > have restrictions not only on the length of a trace
> > > message and on
> > > > > > > the bits usable in a octet, but also on whether the
> > > payload in the
> > > > > > > message uses printable ASCII characters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The requirements for J0/J1/J2 (found in G.707) 
> state the trace
> > > > > > > message payload must utilize the printable characters
> > > defined in
> > > > > > > T.50.  Two current LMP drafts
> > > > > (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh &
> > > > > > > draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap) utilize encodings 
> that are not
> > > > > > > consistant with this requirement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This message is being sent to document this issue.
> > > It is not a
> > > > > > > statement that no other issues exist -- I expect that the
> > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > experts in the ITU will review the rest of these two
> > > drafts and
> > > > > > > provide appropriate comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan Sadler
> > > > >
> > > > > (I disclaim the disclaimer that follows this message.)
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > The information contained in this message may be privileged
> > > > > and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the
> > > > > reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
> > > > > employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
> > > > > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> > > > > reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this
> > > > > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> > > > > this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> > > > > replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > Tellabs
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > >
> > >
>