Re: J0/J1 encoding issues

[Jonathan Sadler <[e-mail]>]

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