Re: J0/J1 encoding issues
Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com> Tue, 26 November 2002 18:20 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:22:31 -0800
Message-ID: <3DE3BB84.5AE7A725@lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:20:52 -0700
From: Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
Organization: Lucent Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>, "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <hklam@lucent.com>, Peter Wery <wery@nortelnetworks.com>
CC: "Razdan, Rajender" <RRazdan@ciena.com>, John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>, Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com, "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO '" <dbrungard@att.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jonathan, I do not write these communication statements: they come from the individual Rapporteur groups doing the work (in this case, Q.14/15). These are usually generated at meetings (in the case of this one, and the one to IETF ccamp regarding G.7713.2 and G.7713.3, these were generated at the meeting of Q.14/15 in Ottawa in October). 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. After all, I think the majority of key participants are OIF memebers as well. 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. 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:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:30 AM > > To: Razdan, Rajender > > Cc: Jonathan Lang; John Drake; Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com; 'Brungard, > > Deborah A, ALASO '; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > 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:otxchange@ftp.itu.int/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:jplang@calient.net] > > > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:28 PM > > > To: Razdan, Rajender; John Drake; Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com > > > 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: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