RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

[Jonathan Lang <[e-mail]>]

yes.

-Jonathan 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake
To: Jonathan Lang; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO ';
'[e-mail] '; 'ccamp '
Sent: 11/21/2002 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

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
============================================================
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
============================================================