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

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

George,

The LMP test procedure is used to exchange GMPLS control plane identifiers
in support of
subsequent RSVP-TE signalling and it will be needed in networks that don't
support G.7714.1,
such as legacy SDH/SONET networks.  I.e., I don't think one can stipulate
that deployment
of GMPLS is gated by the deployment of G.7714.1.

It should also be noted that if the trace correlation transport mechanism is
used in a 
network in which G.7714.1 is deployed, then G.7714.1 will be supported
transparently;  i.e.,
the G.7714.1 bit pattern will be used as the correlating bit pattern.

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Newsome [mailto:gnewsome@ieee.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:24 AM
> To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
> Cc: Stephen Trowbridge; Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com;
> Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; Wijnen, Bert (Bert);
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Kireeti@juniper.net; Ron Bonica (E-mail);
> zinin@psg.com
> Subject: Re: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link
> Verification
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>