RE: [PWE3] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-06.txt

["Uri Rotshtein" <urir@reduxcom.com>]

I would also recommend adopting this draft as WG item. For all this CES market we should close the standard ASAP.

Uri.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:18 AM
To: Michel Khouderchah
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-06.txt


> I would like to see this draft become a WG item. The latest 
> enhancements offer a good compromise to achieve convergence of Anavi and
> Johnson drafts.

Michel, 

Can you elaborate on this convergence that you see?

I hope you are not being fooled by the new draft's
frequent references to ATM-CES --- these references
are either to general descriptive material in that standard,
or to CAS functions, and in no way imply that this new
draft has become any closer to draft-anavi.

Indded, the only major updates to CESoPSN that I see 
actually make it LESS like TDMoIP.

1) There is a new default mode for CAS 
wherein the packet MUST contain a full multiframe.

This is a major DIVERGENCE from draft-anavi,
the entire philosophy of which is to break the locking
between TDM structures and packets
in order to enable flexible selection of packet size and latency.

2) The partial awakening of the CESoPSN authors to the 
fact that they were the only strong promoters of RTP.
So they decided top promote RTP header compression
as well.

This is also a divergence from draft-anavi
which for political reasons has a vague reference to RTP,
but certainly does not promote investing in complex
(and expensive from the IPR viewpoint) header compression
schemes in order to ameliorate its ill effects.

3) The elevation of the following statement to "requirement" level:
   Fixed end-to-end delay: CESoPSN implementations SHOULD provide 
   the same end-to-end delay between any given pair of PEs 
   regardless of the bit-rate of the emulated service. 

I have commented in the past at great length about the total artificiality
of requiring two different links to have the same delay,
only in order to force a given implementation which happens
to have this "feature".
This un-natural requirement is of course entirely alien to draft-anavi.

4) Optional "ECMP Prevention" Word 
This is of course not needed in draft-anavi, as it uses
the standard PWE control word.


Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
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