Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00

That's precisely what I'm asking for: for the wg to agree to augment the existing survey with a short additional one that focuses in the missing bfd mode only.

Tom

On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:03 PM, "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)" <nick.delregno@verizon.com> wrote:

> Tom:
> 
> Please pose that question to the WG (maybe that's what you were doing).
> When we crafted the survey, omitting BFD was an oversight.  However, the
> list of questions was sent to the WG for comment before the survey was
> conducted.  If the WG would like, I can contact the respondents directly
> to inquire of their BFD usage as well.  However, I don't think the
> survey should be reopened.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM
> To: Luca Martini
> Cc: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno); Yaakov Stein; pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
> 
> 
>    One thing I'd ask is that we augment the survey to ask about the
> BFD mode for 
> VCCV. It seems to have been left out of the survey, potentially skewing
> the results. 
> As I understand it, this is the most popular mode.
> 
>    --Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
> 
>> Nick,
>> Good survey, thanks for the work.
>> 
>> Are we going to publish this as informational ?
>> I think we should .
>> Also there is a mention of AToM in section 2.7 item 5 . It should be
>> changed to PWE ( AToM is a cisco marketing term , so we want o keep
> this
>> anonymous )
>> Thanks.
>> Luca
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/15/2011 09:41 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>> Nick, 
>>> 
>>> In section 2.2 the percentages make sense under the assumption of 18
> respondents :
>>> 5.6%   =  1 / 18
>>> 11.1%  =  2 / 18
>>> 16.7%  =  3 / 18
>>> 22.2%  =  4 / 18
>>> 44.4%  =  8 / 18
>>> 77.8%  = 14 / 18 
>>> 
>>> but section 2.1 only lists 17 :
>>> 1.    Time Warner Cable
>>> 2.    Bright House Networks
>>> 3.    Tinet
>>> 4.    AboveNet
>>> 5.    Telecom New Zealand
>>> 6.    Cox Communications
>>> 7.    MTN South Africa
>>> 8.    Wipro Technologies
>>> 9.    Verizon
>>> 10.    AMS-IX
>>> 11.    Superonline
>>> 12.    Deutsche Telekom AG
>>> 13.    Internet Solution
>>> 14.    Easynet Global Services
>>> 15.    Telstra Corporation
>>> 16.    OJSC MegaFon
>>> 17.    France Telecom Orange
>>> 
>>> Did you leave someone off, or did someone answer twice ?
>>> 
>>> Y(J)S
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 16:27
>>> To: pwe3
>>> Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>>> 
>>> Folks:
>>> 
>>> The 00 draft of the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results have been
> uploaded.  I will be presenting the results at IETF80.
>>> 
>>> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-resu
> lts/
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> Christopher N. Del Regno, PMTS
>>> C&T, Ethernet Network Architecture & Design
>>> 400 International Pkwy
>>> Richardson, TX  75081
>>> 972-729-3411
>>> nick.delregno@verizon.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:16 AM
>>> To: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A new version of I-D,
> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00.txt has been successfully
> submitted by Nick Del Regno and posted to the IETF repository.
>>> 
>>> Filename:     draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results
>>> Revision:     00
>>> Title:         The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit
> Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
>>> Creation_date:     2011-03-07
>>> WG ID:         Independent Submission
>>> Number_of_pages: 16
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>> Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
>>> the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the
>>> services for which the encapsulations have been defined.  However,
>>> some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional.  As a result,
>>> implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is
>>> optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service
>>> provider network.  Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity
>>> Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and
>>> multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types.  This flexibility has
>>> led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks
>>> and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation.  This
>>> survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine
>>> implementation trends.  The survey and results is presented herein.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> pwe3@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> pwe3@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>> 
> 
> 