RE: [PWE3] Proposal to Progress draft-orly-pwe3-satop-mib and dra ft-orly-pwe3-tdm-mib

[David Zelig <Davidz at corrigent.com>]

Orly,
Your proposed solution make sense too.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n@rad.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; David Zelig 
> Cc: tnadeau@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposal to Progress 
> draft-orly-pwe3-satop-mib and dra ft-orly-pwe3-tdm-mib
> 
> 
> Since the TDM draft indicates creating an entry in the TDM 
> generic table
> upon the value of 'TDM', if the 4 values suggested by Sasha 
> will become
> the solution, we can extend the generic entry to be created 
> based on one
> of the 4 values rather then based on a single value.   Obviously the
> process description will have to be modified in the draft, but it will
> not break the concept.
> 
> In any case the TDM generic entry was assumed to support all 
> types under
> single name so nothing is violated by providing more than a 
> single name.
> 
> The additional pointers in that table are also consistent with such
> solution.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 09:52
> To: 'David Zelig '; Orly Nicklass
> Cc: 'tnadeau@cisco.com '; 'pwe3@ietf.org '
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposal to Progress draft-orly-pwe3-satop-mib and
> dra ft-orly-pwe3-tdm-mib
> 
> David,
> I was not aware of the need of one-to-one mapping between the 
> PW service
> types used in the Martini FEC and pwVcType values in the MIB.
> You seem tospecify it as a mandatory requirement in your email.
> 
> Accommodating this requirement would, IMO, result in invalidating the
> "generic" TDM MIB and distributing its contents among many 
> specific MIB
> modules. 
> 
> Using just a single "TDM PW Service type" is probably possible, but
> would complicate the setup draft. Clearly some form of 
> compromise should
> be found.
> 
> Maybe we (you, Orly, Yaakov and myself) should meet and discuss the
> possibilities once we are back from Seoul.
> 
> Regards,
>                  Sasha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Zelig
> To: 'Orly Nicklass'
> Cc: tnadeau@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> Sent: 3/2/2004 9:22 AM
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposal to Progress draft-orly-pwe3-satop-mib and
> dra ft-orly-pwe3-tdm-mib
> 
> Orly,
> There is an inconsistency between the MIB suggested and Sasha's draft
> draft-vainshtein-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extension-00.txt - 
> in the MIB
> module you ask for a single PW type and the later draft suggests a PW
> type per TDM mode. Since PwVcType should be one to one the PW type
> carried in the signaling message, one of the two methods 
> should be first
> selected.
> 
> In addition - I need a specific number allocated to whatever method  -
> so when a decision will be made where the signaling extension for TDM
> will be defined  - it should include suggested numbers and then I will
> update the tc draft.
>  
> Thanks
> David
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n@rad.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:11 AM
> > To: tnadeau@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposal to Progress 
> draft-orly-pwe3-satop-mib and
> 
> > draft-orly-pwe3-tdm-mib
> > 
> > 
> >  
> Snipped...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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