Re: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link Verification

[George Newsome <gnewsome@ieee.org>]

Deborah,

I've snipped the earlier stuff to reduce the length of this thread.

Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS wrote:

> I support the liaison response as proposed by Jonathan. It may be
> helpful to add further clarification on the lmp-test format choice.
> - suggest instead of saying "not restricted to printable characters"
> which implies a choice of character/format, say "LMP needs to support
> use of various types of control plane identifiers and control plane
> information, this information is not restricted to the use of printable
> characters. In addition, the LMP message structures can not be supported

Had you forgotten that G.7714.1 also supports various identifiers, and 
those identifiers are also not restricted to the printable set. Its 
coding that creates the printable set. LMP messages can also be passed 
as printable chars after coding.

It would help if you were clear about which messages and why. What I 
read is just another statement that says that LMP is different.


> by the G7714.1 format". And on the use of a format distinguishing
> character, "LMP uses a prior negotiation before use, the in-band is not
> used in parallel with other Jx applications. The correlation procedure
> will be used."
This is not a reason that LMP must be different - just a statement that 
it is.


> There seems to be three discussion threads (all related to lmp-test):
> - confusion on lmp-test and G7714.1 as providing procedures for the
> "same purpose"

Its really hard for me to see how the purpose of the inband message is 
different, even if the whole application is subtly different.


> We discussed this both in T1X1 and ITU-T Q14. Both the T1X1 liaison
> and the ITU-T Q14 liaison clearly identify the two procedures as
> different applications. And the ITU-T Q14 liaison states "The control
> plane protocol specific format is outside of the scope of G.7714.1. We
> invite IETF to propose the message format suitable to exchange these
> information elements." I don't view this thread of discussion as

You will recall that this was NOT about the Jx inband messages, but 
about the out of band exchanges that take place after the inband 
exchanges. This has nothing to do with our current discussion about the 
Jx bytes and the use of a single format for those few messages.


> impacting the liaison. Suggest continuing this discussion on transport
> plane discovery vs. control plane discovery on the ITU exploders as
> Q12/Q14 have already identified a related work item.
> - confusion on why the G7714.1 format can not be used for lmp-test


> See my above suggestion. And note, many of today's management
> interfaces (Corba) are not constrained by TL1/printability. Performance,
> etc need to be considered.

It is very unfortuanate that you didn't bring this up at the proper time 
in Q14. The fact is that all the information needed is able to be passed 
in the printable set, and you agreed to it together with the rest of us.


> - equipment functionality/configurations/impact on legacy
> Again, this was identified in the T1X1 liaison. It doesn't impact
> lmp-test (if we model the scope of lmp-test as similar to G7714.1, which
> also does not address these topics). Suggest moving this discussion to
> the ITU exploders (discussion on G7714.1 equipment impacts just kicked
> off this morning).
>
> And I could not resist some comments (refer to db below), though I
> will move on to the ITU exploder to continue ;-)

Regards

	George