Re: question about RFC 3946

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Whatever technical answer we end up with, can we stick with the phrases
"strictly greater" and "greater or equal" as appropriate, and avoid the
(apparently) ambiguous "greater".

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
To: "Richard Rabbat" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>; <eric_mannie@hotmail.com>;
"'Sadler, Jonathan B.'" <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com>; "'Ong, Lyndon'"
<Lyong@Ciena.com>; "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; "'Richard
Rabbat'" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "'Greg
Bernstein'" <gregb@grotto-networking.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: question about RFC 3946


>
> richard:
>
> "greater" does not mean "strictly greater" it means "greater or equal"
>
> So, what values of NCC and RCC should one use for STS-3c/VC-4?
>
> for STS-3c:
>         An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
>         value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1,
>         NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-
>         3c SPE Elementary Signal.
>
> for VC-4:
>         A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0,
>         NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with
>         value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
>
> do not know if this clarifies -
>
> hint: Note 2 refers to transparent STS-N/STM-N signals (signal type
7->12)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>