Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] Term "PSC"indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

LOL, if only I had got around to reading this e-mail yesterday :-) Ben

On 25/03/2010 08:52, "Alexander Vainshtein"
<Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Adrian,
> Lots of thanks for pointing to 5513, I've missed its publication.
> IMHO and FWIW (which are not covered by 5513) it is extremely relevant for the
> MPLS-TP project.
> Do you consider 5513bis to cover MPLS-TP?
> 
> Regards,
>      Sasha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:56 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; Vivien Sterling
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; CCAMP@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Term "PSC"
> indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
> 
> For issues related to clashes of acronyms please see RFC 5513.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Vainshtein" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> To: "Vivien Sterling" <vivien.sterling@gmail.com>
> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>; <CCAMP@ietf.org>; <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Term "PSC"
> indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
> 
> 
> Vivien and all,
> AFAIK, PSC stands for "Protection State Coordination" in the MPLS-TP
> parlance (see MPLS-TP Survivability
> Framework<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk/>)
> - a new fancy name for what has been known as "APS Protocol" in SONET/SDH.
> 
> As you've noted, it has a completely different meaning in GMPLS.
> 
> Since GMPLS is going to be used with MPLS-TP, double usage of this acronym
> looks highly problematic.
> 
> Regards,
>      Sasha
> 
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Vivien Sterling
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:21 AM
> To: CCAMP@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Term "PSC" in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
> 
> Dear Experts,
> 
> I'm surprised to find the term "PSC" used in this draft. I suppose the
> authors are talking about data plane not control plane, right? Isn't PSC in
> GMPLS elaborated as "Packet Switch Capable" ? It's confusing :-(
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Vivien
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp