RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

["Razdan, Rajender" <[e-mail]>]

[ 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
> ============================================================
>