Re: Moving right along ...

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi John,

It wasn't that I wanted it without explanation. The explanation is that 
M0/M1 is carried transparently across the network without changes at any 
intermediate points. I thought it was obvious that under "transparent" 
attribute, specifying this is automatically assumed transparent unless 
there is some exception cases about them...

Hope this explains. I wasn't trying to "ram" this down anyone's 
throat...BTW, you can just refer to me as "Zhi" :-)

Zhi


John Drake wrote:

> Maarten,
> 
> I'm sorry, my comment was more procedural than technical.  If everyone
> agrees that it is necessary, then obviously it should be added.  Zhi-Wei
> didn't try to gain consensus for adding it, he just said that he wanted it
> with no explanation, as far as I could tell.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:32 PM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: Zhi-Wei Lin; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Moving right along ...
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Semi transparent STM-N signal transport is typically required to support the
> following applications:
> 
> * DCN application: D1-D3, D4-D12
> * MS protection application: J0, K1, K2, B2
> * Other: 
>   [Orderwire] E1, E2, 
>   [User Channel] F1, 
>   [Single-ended MSn Performance Monitoring] M0, M1 (in addition to 
> 					    J0, K2[6-8] and B2)
>   [RSn Performance Monitoring] B1 (in addition to J0)
> 
> So M0/M1 transport is required in order to support single-ended MSn
> performance
> monitoring.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maarten
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:47 AM
>>To: Kireeti Kompella
>>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: Moving right along ...
>>
>>SNIPPED
>>
>>
>>>As for the rest, let me juxtapose your comments on switching type
>>>and M0/M1; I will say nothing, hoping that the juxtaposition will
>>>speak for itself.
>>>
>>>
>><z>The switching type is in a "standard" document, while the M0/M1 is in
>>the "non-standard" document. I will let that speak for itself as well.
>>And by the way, when you made this comment are making it as a chair or
>>as a contributor?</z>
>>
>>JD:  Actually, the signalling drafts are on exactly the same technical
>>footing as the "non-standard" draft,
>>so I think your attempt to draw a distinction between the two is specious
>>
> at
> 
>>best.  Once again, a feature
>>or capability is added if the community as a whole decides, through a
>>process of rough consensus, that it
>>should be added.  No one other than you has indicated an issue with
>>switching type and I haven't seen a groundswell
>>of support for M0/M1.
>>
>>
>>
>>Zhi
>>