Re: Moving right along ...

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

Hi Dimitri,

Yes thank you. I wasn't saying implying that I want it now! I was just 
pointing out that this was something that I am working with Eric already 
to resolved (if you see my first email).

Thanks for your help! I appreciate it!

Zhi


Dimitri Papadimitriou wrote:

> All,
> 
> Just to mention here that this request is under evaluation
> we have never reject this proposal but only answer for some
> time in order to check for consistency with the existing 
> content of the document. It is not because we are speaking 
> "optical" stuff that we can integrate content at the speed 
> of light ;-)
> 
> It has been received when the document was just issued this
> is why not included in the current version. I hope this 
> non-issue is closed.
> 
> Thanks for your understanding and your patience,
> Dimitri.
> 
> Zhi-Wei Lin wrote:
> 
>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>