RE: [T1X1.5] RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-01.txt

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

Bert,

T1X1.5 reviewed the draft at our meeting last week and prepared a response. The T1X1 Chair will be sending the liaison to you, for those interested in reviewing before it is uploaded to the IETF site, here's a link to the T1X1 site:

ftp://ftp.t1.org/T1X1/X1.0/3X100110.doc

Regards,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:53 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dimitri Papadimitriou; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; t1x15@t1.org
Subject: [T1X1.5] RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-01.txt


Bert,

Sorry for the late response, I was out for vacation and just catching up.

Lacking a formal liaison process for IETF to communicate with T1X1/ITU (hopefully we will have a process soon;-)), I think the best approach to handle your request will be for me to upload the draft to the t1x15 files. As we have a meeting next week, I will introduce the draft for discussion and provide you with a response asap.

At our September meeting, Jonathan was able to attend and present the IETF lmp bootstrap proposal. It was extremely helpful to have him there, as we all know, the difference in our terminology can be fatal to communication. Lacking LMP representation at next week's meeting, it would be helpful to ensure we understand your request. My understanding is your request is to understand if there are any issues with the use of the sonet-sdh overhead bytes as proposed by LMP. To help T1X1.5 understand the application, I've summarized as follows. Please comment/clarify if I have misunderstood.

- lmp-test-sonet-sdh is a GMPLS protocol-specific method to manage GMPLS control plane neighboring nodes. Management includes managing of the GMPLS control channel and TE links (GMPLS control plane logical constructs).

- LMP test messages are defined for link verification and correlation. Two options are defined, one using the Jx bytes, the other using an "out-of-band" trace correlation. The out-of-band trace correlation (using the LMP control channel) has no impact on the Jx bytes, Jx use is per the currently defined T1.105/G.707 Access Point Identifier application. In addition, a trace monitor capability is defined to detect mis-connections, this capability also uses the currently defined G.707/G.783 Jx and trace mismatch process.

- "in-band" test messages using the Jx bytes are defined based on the G.707 16-byte multi-frame. The test messages are used to identify GMPLS links i.e. populate the GMPLS database as links available for use (routing/signalling). This process is a pre-service application i.e. the method is used to determine the available links to use for routing user traffic (i.e. the links are not carrying user traffic during this test phase). Whereas the G.707/T1.105 Jx Access Point Identifier is an "in-service" application.

- an earlier draft version included the 64-byte J1 format. Was it intentionally or unintentionally deleted as part of the updates to remove the incorrect reference for the 64-byte J0? The 64-byte J1 is the ANSI defined format. The 16-byte format support is considered optional to support international applications.

- LMP link verification and correlation are GMPLS-specific i.e. different application than the G.7714.1 layer adjacency discovery.

Thanks,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:13 PM
To: Dimitri Papadimitriou; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-01.txt


Dimitri says:
> hi steve,
>  
> > All,
> > Bert asked me to have a look at this from an ITU-T perspective.
> 
> what does that really mean ?
> 
This means that I got an IETF document from one of the WGs for which
I am the responsible AD. It also means that this document is about
using SONET/SDH overhead bytes, which I think are under control of ITU.
So I want to check for such type of documents if there are issues
from the "owning SDO" with the proposed use of such overhead bytes

Seems to be doing due diligence on my part.

And since Steve is often (one of) the interface people from SG15
to IETF (he is vice chair of SG15), that is why I asked him.

I also asked Deborah Brungard (T1X1) with the same question.

Hope this explains.
Bert