RE: WG document status

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <dbrungard@att.com>]

Eric and Zhi are both correct -

gen-signaling-07, on the LSP encoding type values, has two separate codes to
support SDH ITU-T G.707 and SONET ANSI T1.105, and two different codes for
ANSI PDH and ETSI PDH. This excludes PDH types supported outside of ANSI and
ETSI. I have many times suggested simply one code for ITU-T PDH, which
includes everyone (all types are captured in ITU-T).
 
[Also true for SDH, the ANSI STS-3 (SDH AU-3) structure is used in SDH
countries (SDH countries do exist outside of Europe). The use of two codes
for SDH and SONET does not simplify the groups of structures which one needs
to support. The full ITU-T set needs to be supported in the U.S., Europe,
and everywhere.]

My comment was to say the question to use different values for SDH and
SONET, depending the outcome, will also impact the gen-signalling document.
And to remind everyone, at the LSP level, there are also two code points.
There are code points for differentiating SDH/SONET at all levels
(redundant?).

Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:18 AM
To: Mannie, Eric
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; Kireeti Kompella; Ben Mack-Crane;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO
Subject: Re: WG document status


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
> 
>