Re: J0/J1 encoding issues

[Stephen Trowbridge <[e-mail]>]

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
> > ============================================================
> >