RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <[e-mail]>]

There are some of us who are members of OIF/ITU/T1X1/IETF, though the majority are not. For those of us attending multiple meetings, we do forget;-)

We had identified an open dir for IETF and ITU-T to share work of common interest? Considering discovery and routing are our (ITU) current work items, I recommend we make available these drafts in the public directory. The earlier we can share work between IETF and ITU, we will all benefit.

And T1X1.5 welcomes participation and contributions, both USA and international. Our exploder is open and our contribution dir is open.

Deborah



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:21 PM
To: Jonathan Lang; Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); Peter Wery
Cc: Razdan, Rajender; John Drake; [e-mail]; Brungard,
Deborah A, ALASO; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: J0/J1 encoding issues


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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:30 AM
> > To: Razdan, Rajender
> > Cc: Jonathan Lang; John Drake; [e-mail]; 'Brungard,
> > Deborah A, ALASO '; [e-mail]
> > 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:[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
> > > > ============================================================
> > > >
> >