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

Re: Final draft of response to the OIF



ben,

the purpose of the sentence you were initially pointing out addresses as generic rule more than the specific case under discussion (reason why i pointed to this note 2) from the initial clarification asked by the OIF - ditto

"Clarification is requested from IETF CCAMP as to which setting is considered correct, or if both settings should be accepted (this procedure was used during testing at Supercomm)."

hence, any further discussion is involving much more than the requested clarification since questioning the logic behind the settings specified in this RFC; as these are pure conventions we may debated them forever, however, it suffice that one logic gets consensus (with all what it implies), which is the case otherwise this would have not become an RFC

---


Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin wrote:

Dimitri,

Note 2 on page 6 refers to transparent mode, which is a
different thing altogether.  I think this encoding is
poorly chosen as well (and may not allow for the full
flexibility of equipment that provides various levels
of transparent STS-N/STM-N switching), but that is not
currently under discussion.

Regards,
Ben



-----Original Message-----
From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:dpapadimitriou@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:38 PM
To: Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin
Cc: Adrian Farrel; Richard Rabbat; Huub van Helvoort; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: 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





============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================


.