RE: [PWE3] draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03 and draft-danenberg-pw-cem-mib-02 to be WG drafts

[Robert.B.Dianda@mail.sprint.com]

Andy,
	In section 3.1, I think the text regarding bit-error-rate should be 
expanded to include the impact of the BER of the underlying transmission 
facilities. A single errored bit in the packet will equate to a packet 
loss. This bit-error multiplication of transmission bit errors should be 
mentioned. 

Also, a single packet loss could equate to a Severely errored second (I 
did see where you have specified a default of 3 lost packets to equate 
to a SES). Since acceptable SES is much less than acceptable ES, the 
choice of packet size may be influenced by SES. i.e. choose a packet 
size small enough that its loss would not result in a SES.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy.Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@VivaceNetworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:05 AM
> To: pwe3
> Cc: danny
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03 and
> draft-danenberg-pw-cem-mib-02 to be WG drafts
> 
> 
> PWE3ers,
> 
> draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03.txt and its accompanying MIB, 
> draft-danenberg-pw-cem-mib-02.txt, have both recently been 
> updated based 
> upon all WG comments to date.  The major changes were to add an 
> applicability statement section to the pwe3-sonet draft (new 
> section 3), 
> and in the case of the MIB, to have complete alignment with 
> the other pwe3 
> MIB drafts.  This message is a request to make these two 
> documents working 
> group drafts.
> 
> Many thanks,
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3