Re: WG document status

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

Hi,

I think Jerry's point is that in 
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt, section 3.1.1, LSP 
encoding type:

Value 5: SDH ITU-T G.707
Value 6: SONET ANSI T1.105

is still separate and should be:

Value 5 (or xx): SDH ITU-T G.707

Also, based on one of Deborah's earlier email, the same probably holds 
true for the PDH:

Value 3: ANSI PDH
Value 4: ETSI PDH

should be:

Value 3 (or yy): ITU-T PDH

Is this correct, Jerry or Deborah?

Zhi


Mannie, Eric wrote:
> Hello Gerald,
> 
> 
>>Disagree.  As Deborah just said again on Monday, the SONET/SDH label issue
>>
> applies to the gen-signaling draft too, where the SDH and SONET labels are
> defined.  This comment has been made again.  And again.  And now again.
> 
> Not at all, the SDH/SONET labels are NOT defined in the generalized
> signaling drafts. Please check the drafts. The whole SDH/SONET, including
> the labels, is in the two SDH/SONET drafts, except of course the values of
> the LSP Encoding Type that are listed in the generalized signaling draft.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO [mailto:gash@att.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: Kireeti Kompella; Ben Mack-Crane
> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG document status
> 
> 
> Kireeti,
> 
> 
>>>Regarding the generalized signaling draft, I submitted
>>>several comments after the last IETF identifying technical
>>>issues
>>>
> 
>>WG Last Call for this draft is over.  And over.  And over.  It's
>>DONE.  Consensus was rather rough.  That's a pity -- it would be
>>nice to make everyone happy.
>>
> 
> Yes, last call was *declared* over.  But the SDH/SONET issue pertains to
> this draft too.  And that comment was made again.  And again.  And again.
> And still *not* resolved.
> 
> 
>>Right now, the only issue on the signaling front is the SDH/SONET
>>label issue.  And that's a _different_ draft.
>>
> 
> Disagree.  As Deborah just said again on Monday, the SONET/SDH label issue
> applies to the gen-signaling draft too, where the SDH and SONET labels are
> defined.  This comment has been made again.  And again.  And now again.
> 
> Jerry Ash
> 
>