[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
Lyndon,
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt has 4 basic sections:
1) Introduction
2) Terminology
3) Verifying Link Connectivity
4) Trace Monitoring
Section 1 and 2 provide context for the draft. Nothing new here.
Section 3 gives an overview of Link Verification. Again, nothing new here.
Section 3.1 provides details of the various options for the Verify Transport
Mechanism when the encoding is SONET/SDH. Of these, the first 4 options came
from Section 14.8 of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-04.txt with the clarification
posted to the list in response to Jonathan Sadler's doubt. The remaining
options are new based on comments to the list that additional trail trace
identifier strings (J1, J2) could be used.
Section 4 is SONET/SDH technology specific text taken from Section 3.6 of
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@ciena.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:03 PM
> To: 'Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be'
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Bernstein, Greg; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
>
>
> Hi Dimitri,
>
> This is not complicated, "separation" sounds like you take
> an existing WG draft text and split some of it off into a
> separate document, as was in fact done with the earlier
> gmpls signaling documents that you pointed out.
>
> Here, there was basically a new set of text created from
> scratch, so it is more akin to a new individual draft
> and the text has not been reviewed or endorsed by the WG.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lyndon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:10 AM
> To: Ong, Lyndon
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Bernstein, Greg; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
>
>
> hi,
>
> i suggest that you take another look at the document
> because it clearly says "In [LMP], a link verification
> procedure is defined whereby Test messages are transmitted
> in-band over the data links. This is used for data plane
> discovery, Interface_Id exchange (Interface_Ids are used
> in GMPLS signaling, either as port labels [GMPLS-SIG] or
> component link identifiers [BUNDLE], depending on the
> configuration), and physical connectivity verification."
>
> thus complete the sentence by saying that this document
> uses a "generic mechanism" the link verification as
> defined in [LMP], for (among other) discovery purposes
> and this i-d describes the way to achieve it for sonet/
> sdh environments, thus we follow the ad's advices by
> meeting the mailing list comments ...
>
> ... by the way an update of the bootstrap document has
> been issued addressing the valuable comments we have
> received through the ccamp mailing list:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-boots
> trap-01.txt
>
> the first comment is difficult to understand from the
> technical viewpoint (imho you agree on an assertion this
> does not make this assertion more valid) by the way when
> we split the gmpls signalling into gmpls-sonet-sdh you
> were much less shooting than today - and there the text
> was *really* different - what happened since then ? do i
> have to understand that you would like to build a car w/o
> its wheels (but... this is your *individual* choice)
>
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
>
> "Ong, Lyndon" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kireeti,
> >
> > What is confusing people is that the new draft is not text
> > split off from the original LMP specification but almost
> > entirely new text and subject matter, as Zhi points out.
> >
> > Also, concerns were expressed on the mailing list that some
> > of the functions in LMP were not applicable in SONET/SDH,
> > _including_ link verification. The new draft is basically
> > a set of extensions _to_ link verification.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > L. Ong
> > Ciena
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:06 AM
> > To: Bernstein, Greg
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Bernstein, Greg wrote:
> >
> > > This draft seems to contain new material not in LMP. How
> can it be
> > already
> > > considered a working group item for CCAMP?
> >
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt had material that was not already in
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-00.txt. How can it be already
> considered a working
> > group document item for CCAMP? und so weiter ... Are you
> suggesting
> > a new process for documents in the IETF, or is it just for documents
> > whose name contains the string 'lmp'?
> >
> > <chair>
> > This draft is a separation of the original LMP draft into
> two documents,
> > as suggested by the primary AD: a *base* document,
> technology-agnostic,
> > and a SONET-SDH specific document.
> >
> > The fact that the latter document has new material is in response to
> > requests from folks in CCAMP. Both documents will undergo
> another WG
> > Last Call.
> > </chair>
> >
> > Kireeti.
>