[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Final draft of response to the OIF




to clarify:

The example did not adhere to the rule RCC=1 implies NCC>1
which was stated in the RFC (and is technically sound) thus
one could reasonable presume the example was in error.

actually your interpretation is not correct - see note 2 of RFC 3946 (page 6) where the settings RCC=1 can imply NCC=1 is explicitly stated -


this said, one of the reason for this setting wrt the specific point raised by the OIF is due to the logic that has been used in making use of RCC and NCC value when the signal spelling include a "c" i.e. STS-(3xN)c SPE so for STS-3c SPE the setting is a logical consequence of N = 1

however, editors have been using a wording for the generic rule which has not been understood as expected hence the clarification stated last march on this list - and reproduced in the bis version -

in brief, all this doesn't deserve this flurry of e-mails wrt to the specific point to be addressed