RE: Revised GMPLS SONET/SDH drafts

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hello Juergen,

>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.

I will repeat the agreed sentence once more at the beginning of the section
defining the label.

>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)

No, that's not what I said. By the way, OIF UNI 1.0 is not an implementation
but an Implementation Agreement (i.e. a standard from the point of view of a
large part of the community). There were also several reasons mentioned in
my e-mail.

>it would be better to explicitly mention this and have the whole SONET
definitions separate.

Now you want to have two separate labels ! The SONET and SDH labels are
jointly defined since they are very similar up to one given point. I am
little bit confused now, you requested many times to have a common
definition, and now you don't want it anymore.

I will repeat the agreed sentence once more at the beginning of the section
defining the label. I hope that we don't have to repeat each sentence twice
in a standard, otherwise all RFCs will be twice longer :-)

>At the end of the label section a new paragraph is added concerning
transparent concatenated  STM-N signals.

Yes, it was requested during the last last call for clarification (by Manoj
or you, I don't remember).

>I assume this is a signal with signal type STM-N/STS-3*N, transparency flag
set and NCC>1.

No, NCC = 1 as defined in the NCC section (note 2).

>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)?

In that example the label is exactly the same with or without concatenation,
with or without transparency. We added this paragraph because we were told
(by you ?) that the other cases were obvious but that this one (i.e. STM-N,
transparency and concatenation) was not... Anyway, I will add "with or
without" to further further clarify.

As far as I know one always need a label with GMPLS, simply because the
protocol and the code assume that a label will be returned in all cases.
Simple.

>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.

We already discussed this and I already answered several times. I don't have
something more to say than the last time (and you didn't ask more :-).

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Heiles Juergen [mailto:Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:08 PM
To: Mannie, Eric; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org '
Cc: 'dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be '
Subject: RE: Revised GMPLS SONET/SDH drafts


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
> 
>