RE: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link Verifi cation

[Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>]

> In any case, this is important, there is enough support, so I will
> send the liaison off as is.

Done.  We need a couple of follow-up items:

| Based on information contained in the ITU and T1X1 liaison, as well as
| subsequent e-mail exchanges on the CCAMP mailing list, and in order to
| ensure proper interoperability in legacy SDH/SONET networks as well as
| networks in which G.7714.1 is deployed, it will be recommended by the
| editors to the CCAMP community to support only the Jx trace correlation
| procedure and not the in-band Jx procedure.  Pending agreement, the
| draft will be updated.

There was reasonable consensus (and no opposition) to this change.

| We agree that terminology differences between IETF and ITU-T wrt
| GMPLS have been confusing.  There is an ongoing effort within
| CCAMP to work together with T1X1/ITU-T on bridging the terminology
| gaps.  For example, there is a new Internet draft
| (draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-00.txt) being considered in
| CCAMP to do this mapping for LMP.

When the current hubbub over the ASON requirements document dies down,
I will check for WG consensus to move this forward.

| > 5. Clarification of the usage of transport and control
| > names for transport resources in the subject draft, as
| > described in G.8080 Amendment
|
| The trace correlation transport mechanism supports a separation of
| the transport and control plane identifiers.

Would it be useful to call this out explicitly in the document?

| > 6. Consideration of the ANSI 64-byte J1.
|
| This was mistakenly deleted from the latest version of the draft.
| This will be included in the next version.

Editors of the lmp-sonet-sdh doc, please update it with the change
to the in-band Jx procedure, the above clarification (if needed),
and the 64-byte J1, and resubmit it.  Thanks!

Thanks, All,
Kireeti.