RE: [PWE3] comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt

["tom k. johnson" <tom_johnson@litchfieldcomm.com>]

Bob/Yaakov -

I like that nomenclature as well.  

-Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@fiberintheloop.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:21 AM
> To: Yaakov Stein; stbryant@cisco.com
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt
> 
> 
> OK - so how about "synchronous bit-stream as defined in ITU 
> spec blah blah
> blah etc". That nails down the definitions to the selected 
> types of streams
> that PWE3 should (must?) address. Shouldn't the requirements 
> document be
> unambiguous and bounded w.r.t. this point at this juncture?
> 
> Bob
> 
> -snip-
> 
> If you want to be completely generic -
> then say "synchronous bit-stream"
> (which is close to the term you used in
> you original "layering" slides).
> 
> This covers n*64, full E1/T1, PDH, SDH,
> but also X.21, V.35, etc.
> 
> If you want the restriction to internationally defined (i.e. 
> G.702) rates
> and standardized alarms,  then stick to "TDM".
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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