RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

[John Drake <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan S,

Okay, now you've really confused me.

In this e-mail, you seem to be saying that any T.50 character is valid in
J0/J1/J2.  However, in your earlier e-mail, which is included way down at
the bottom of this e-mail, you say "The requirements for J0/J1/J2 (found
in G.707) state the trace message payload must utilize the printable
characters
defined in T.50".

Which is the real requirement?

If it is the former, then there is no issue with
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap.
I.e., T.50 defines all possible 7 bit values and
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap
specifies that 7 bits of information are to be carried in each octet, so by
definition every possible seven bit value is a valid T.50 character.

If it is the latter, then it doesn't sound as though the latest draft
G.7714.1
is any more conformant than draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap is.

Thanks,

John

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:49 AM
To: John Drake
Cc: Razdan, Rajender; Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO ';
'ccamp '
Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues


John, 

There are a number of T.50 characters that are non-E.164 and
non-alphabetic.  The use of a non-E.164 and non-alphabetic character in
the format defined by draft G.7714.1 is to provide backward
compatability with the country-specific and carrier-specific encodings
described in G.831.

Jonathan Sadler

John Drake wrote:
> 
> Rajender,
> 
> Why don't you send a pointer to the draft, so that any interested party
can
> take a look at it and decide for themselves?
> 
> As I understand it, the  version presented at the Experts Meeting in
Ottawa
> did not comply with T.50 requirements, and it is only the newest draft
> version that attempts to address the T.50 requirements.  It does so by
> re-defining current Jx processing with a new format that "uses a non-E.164
> and non-alphabetic character in the first byte of the message".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> -----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
> ============================================================
============================================================
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
============================================================