Re: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link Verific ation

[George Newsome <gnewsome@ieee.org>]

Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> You missed most of the discussion, one can not take vacations from
> the ccamp exploder;-)
>
Its a good job that the whole thread is stored isn't it :-)

>..............
>
> The liaison from T1X1 asked: 2. Determination of whether it would be
> possible to use the identical message formats in the subject draft
> as in G.7714.1 for the connectivity verification function.   3.
> Determination of whether it would be possible to use the same
> overall structure (distinguishing character, 4 bit message type, 80
> bit message body) if a different message format or information
> content is required.
>
> The answer from the LMP authors: As the LMP message content is
> control information, use of printable characters is not an
> appropriate requirement and it is an inappropriate constraint. And
> the LMP messages can not use the G7714.1 structure. This answer is
> not simply a statement, it is a rationale for the choices. We do
> not require Corba to use printable messages, is that considered a
> "statement" or a choice? Ask your Corba developers.
>
The answer suggests that only printable chars can be used to construct 
the identifiers, and that is simply not true. This simply confuses the 
message content with the form of the message on the wire - they are very 
different. Printable chars is merely a coding to provide a better match 
to the available Jx channel, (which actually starts at a provisioning 
system.)

> To support a liaison response in a timely manner, let's focus on
> specific wording changes. I still have not seen any suggested
> wording changes on the liaison response as proposed.
>
Its hard to agree on specific words when the intent of the liaison does 
not seem to be agreed.

Regards

	George