Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw WG last call

[Carlos Pignataro <cpignata at cisco.com>]

Peter,

On 3/23/2009 1:42 PM, Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> You are right that fault has been used so widely that it does not make
> sense to change all occurrences. I certainly don't advocate changing
> "fault detection" to "defect detection". I agree that we can refer to
> the definition that you quoted and be fairly liberal in using "fault"
> and "defect".

Ack.

> 
> However, with respect to the segmented-pw draft, the text in section 10
> is clearly an extension of the oam-msg-map draft. Therefore, I think it
> should use the same terminology for states and indications.

I agree as well.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

> 
> Peter
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carlos Pignataro [mailto:cpignata at cisco.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:22 AM
>> To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
>> Cc: stbryant at cisco.com; pwe3; 
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw at tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw WG last call
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Does this proposal apply to all instances of those words? 
>> Note for example that the PW Status from RFC4446 and RFC4447 
>> uses "Fault", and the document should probably keep referring 
>> to the same terms.
>>
>> Also, does this comment apply also to the vccv-bfd document? 
>> Grepping, vccv-bfd uses "Fault Detection" and "Fault Status" 
>> in all its definitions (and uses "defect" in one paragraph).
>>
>> Finally, is is a better disposition to use the text from
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-09 in the definitions/terminology section?
>> Quote:
>>
>> --->8---
>>
>>    The words "defect" and "fault" are used inter-changeably to mean a
>>    condition which causes user packets not to be forwarded between the
>>    CE endpoints of the PW service.
>>
>> --->8---
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- Carlos.
>>
>> On 3/22/2009 1:32 PM, Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) wrote:
>>> Stewart,
>>>
>>> I noticed that draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11 consistently 
>> uses the 
>>> word "fault", whereas draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-09 uses the word 
>>> "defect".
>>>
>>> Colloquially, these words have the same meaning. Several standards 
>>> specifications, however, make a distinction between the two 
>> terms. In 
>>> ITU-T specs, a defect refers to the interruption of the 
>> capability of 
>>> a transport entity to transfer user or OAM information, 
>> while a fault
>>> (failure) refers to the termination of this capability. In other 
>>> words, a fault is a persistent defect and indicates that 
>> something is 
>>> really broken.
>>>
>>> According to this definition, 
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11 should 
>>> use the defect instead of fault. In order to create consistency 
>>> between the documents, I propose that 
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11 be modified.
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] 
>> On Behalf 
>>>> Of Stewart Bryant
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:46 PM
>>>> To: pwe3
>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw at tools.ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw WG last call
>>>>
>>>> This is the start of working group last call on
>>>>
>>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11.txt
>>>>
>>>> This draft can be found at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-
>>>> pw-11.txt
>>>>
>>>> Monday 9th March 2009.
>>>>
>>>> Please read the document and provide feedback to the PWE3 list
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Stewart
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>
>