RE: Revised GMPLS SONET/SDH drafts

[Heiles Juergen <Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de>]

Hi Eric,

a took me a while to detect the agreements related to the label in the updated text as the label section still defines SDH and SONET labels in full details without mentioning the SDH labels should be used also for SONET signals. This new sentence in the introduction is very likely to be forgotten/not noticed and in the end we might get even more confusion/interop problems.
AS you mentioned in one of the other e-mails that the SONET label is kept for interoperability issues with existing implementations (e.g. OIF UNI1.0) it would be better to explicitly mention this and have the whole SONET definitions separate.

At the end of the label section a new paragraph is added concerning transparent concatenated  STM-N signals. I assume this is a signal with signal type STM-N/STS-3*N, transparency flag set and NCC>1. This leads to two questions:
What is the SUKLM label for a transparent STM-N without concatenation explicitly requested (Do we need a SUKLM label at all)?
Why is the case of transparency + contiguous concatenation (actually a contradiction in it self) special from the general transparency case and has to be mentioned.

The STM-0 SUKLM definition (S=0) is different from the STS-1 definition (S=1), also both are the same signal. As the STM-0 definition was just introduced it could have been made the same as the existing STS-1 definition. 

Regards

Juergen



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mannie, Eric [mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:00 AM
> To: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org '
> Cc: 'dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be '
> Subject: Revised GMPLS SONET/SDH drafts
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached the two GMPLS SDH/SONET drafts revised 
> according to the
> comments received during the last period of comments, and 
> during the Salt
> Lake City meeting:
> 
> - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt
> - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt
> 
> Please, send your comments to the mailing list AND to us.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric and Dimitri
> 
>