RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net> Tue, 26 November 2002 03:27 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:29:40 -0800
Message-ID: <C12BBE1C7A8F7344808CD8C2A345DFB8865CF5@pulsar.chromisys.com>
From: Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>
To: "'Razdan, Rajender'" <RRazdan@ciena.com>, John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>, Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com
Cc: "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '" <dbrungard@att.com>, 'ccamp ' <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:27:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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:RRazdan@ciena.com] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:55 AM > To: John Drake; Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com > 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:jdrake@calient.net] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:24 AM > To: Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com > 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:jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com] > 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:jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com] > > 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 '; 'jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com '; > > > '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: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com; 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:jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com] > > > 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 > ============================================================ >
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Lang
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Stephen Trowbridge
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Razdan, Rajender
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Lang
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Stephen Trowbridge
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Sadler
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Razdan, Rajender
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues John Drake
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Lang
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Bernstein, Greg
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues John Drake
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Sadler
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues John Drake
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Sadler
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Lang
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues John Drake
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Bernstein, Greg
- FW: J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Lang
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Bala Rajagopalan
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Bernstein, Greg
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Bala Rajagopalan
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO
- J0/J1 encoding issues Jonathan Sadler
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues neil.2.harrison
- Re: J0/J1 encoding issues Maarten Vissers
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Greg Bernstein
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues John Drake
- RE: J0/J1 encoding issues Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO