Re: comments on draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib-dte-04.txt

Rick Cornetti <cornetti@wg.com> Wed, 10 May 1995 14:37 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04196; 10 May 95 10:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04192; 10 May 95 10:37 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07520; 10 May 95 10:37 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04164; 10 May 95 10:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04160; 10 May 95 10:35 EDT
Received: from ncnoc.ncren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07429; 10 May 95 10:35 EDT
Received: from chaos.wg.com by ncnoc.ncren.net (5.65/tas-ncren/may94) id AA03340; Wed, 10 May 95 10:33:23 -0400
Received: from speedy.wg.com by wg.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02724; Wed, 10 May 95 10:33:19 EDT
Received: from rocky.looneytunes by speedy.wg.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25182; Wed, 10 May 95 10:33:39 EDT
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 10:33:39 EDT
X-Orig-Sender: iplpdn-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Rick Cornetti <cornetti@wg.com>
Message-Id: <9505101433.AA25182@speedy.wg.com>
To: fred@cisco.com, jas@shiva.com
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib-dte-04.txt
Cc: cbrown@wellfleet.com, carvalho@cisco.com, iplpdn@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

> 
>    >Is missing one value, in my reckoning.  ANSI T1.617a-1994 revises
>    >Annex D in an incompatible way.  (Thanks, ANSI!  The "element
>    >identifier" of "Link integrity verification information element" is
>    >changed from 0x19 to 0x03.)
> 
>    What idiot did that? Did they do anything useful with the protocol (tell
>    you the Bc/Be/throughput values, perhaps) that would justify implementing
>    it?
> 
> No idea which idiot.  The 20 "idiots" of working group T1S1.2 are
> listed on page vii...
> 
> 
> There is no change in the coding of this IE.  My only guess is that
> someone else in another ANSI working group allocated EI 0x19 in the
> ANSI codeset (shift 5 in US), so that they had to resolve the
> conflict.  There's no conflict in T1.607-1990, the only codeset 5 EI
> there is 0x1d for "operator system access IE".  However, I don't have
> ANSI T1.608, which also is noted to allocate EI's in codeset 5.
> 
> I don't know why they stuck with codeset 5 here.  So long as they were
> changing it, they could have used the ITU-T EI of 0x93 in codeset 0.
> 
> However, there is a meaningful change in the ANSI 1994 LMI.  They
> added a "delete" bit in the "PVC status" IE.  However, they DIDN'T
> change the EI for that, it's still 0x07 (codeset 5).  Maybe that's why
> they changed the other EI?!  Strange way to flag the change!!
> 
> 
> (acronyms: EI :== element identifier, IE :== information element).
> 
> 
> Far as I know, most FR switches are still provisioned for Interim LMI.
> All these other ones are just a nuisance to implementors, adding no
> value over Interim LMI.  Still, some fool will setup a network
> somewhere with the ANSI 1994 one, then it's back to the grindstone...
> 
> Remember, it could be worse, we could be writing the 50 flavors of
> full ISDN call control (DSS1), with codesets 5, 6, and 7, different on
> every switch vendor in every country in every operating authority!
> 


I noted this discrepancy too. Here is the response from the frame relay list:


----- Begin Included Message -----

From owner-frame-relay@stone.ucs.indiana.edu Mon Jan  9 12:43:55 1995
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 09:25:00 PST
From: art@doelztc.timeplex.com (Art Biesiada)
Subject: FR: RE: Annex D LIV IE -- which is correct
To: frame-relay@stone.ucs.indiana.edu
Sender: owner-frame-relay@stone.ucs.indiana.edu
Reply-To: comp.dcom.frame-relay@indiana.edu
X-Info1: submissions to comp.dcom.frame-relay@indiana.edu
X-Info2: [Un]Subscribe requests to frame-relay-request@indiana.edu
X-Info3: example- unsubscribe frame-relay somebody@somewhere.com
X-Info4: archives (soon to be announced)
Content-Length: 697

I have a copy of ANSI T1-617a-1994, where it states on page 6:
"In D.3.2, change Link integrity verification information element identifier
from "00011001" to "00000011" ...

So the correct ID is 0x03.

Art Biesiada
Ascom Timeplex



> Author: NAME: cornetti@wg.com <SYS30::INTERNET::cornetti@wg.com>
> 
> I have detected a discrepancy in T1.617 Annex D in the
> Link Integrity Verification IE. 
> 
> In T1.617 "Draft for T1 Default Ballot" (T1S1/91-352), 
> the LIV IE ID (octet 1) is shown as 0x03. In the published 
> ANSI T1.617-1991, Annex D, the LIV IE ID is shown as 0x19.
> 
> Which is correct?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Rick Cornetti
> Wandel & Goltermann, Inc.
> RTP, NC, USA, 27709



----- End Included Message -----


So it appears that there was a "typo" in ANSI T1.617-1991, Annex D and that
ANSI fixed it in the 1994 version.


Regards,
Rick Cornetti
Network Systems
Wandel & Goltermann
RTP, NC, USA