Deborah,
Thanks for the review. I went over all the comments below and intend to
incorporate them in the draft unless there are objections from the
mailing list.
Thanks a lot!
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com; Ron Cohen
> Cc: PWE3 (IETF)
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-05.txt - Last Call
>
>
> Stewart, Ron, all,
>
> Here's some minor edits to align with T1X1.5 updates to
> T1.105 (aligning with 2001 version) and ITU-T updates:
>
> 6 SONET/SDH Maintenance Signals
> - as multiple functionalities (LTE, PTE, etc) may be
> supported at a NSP, it may help clarify to add,
> "Failure detection capabilities and performance monitoring
> capabilities will be dependent on the NSP functionality e.g.
> LTE, PTE, Tandem Connection Monitoring (refer to [G.707]), or
> Non-intrusive Monitoring (intermediate connection monitoring)."
>
> 6.1.1 AIS-P/V Indication
> - minor edits on included defects, and suggest to say "for
> example" as SDH and SONET differ on AIS insertion:
> "The mapping of SONET/SDH failures into the PATH/VT layer is
> considered part of the NSP function, and is based on the
> principles specified in [GR253], [SONET], [G.707], [G.806],
> and [G.783]. Should for example the Section Layer detect a
> Loss of Signal (LOS) or Loss of Frame (LOF) or Section Trace
> Mismatch (TIM) conditions, it sends AIS-L up to the Line
> Layer. If the Line Layer detects AIS-L or Loss of Pointer
> (LOP), it sends AIS-P to the Path Layer. If the Path Layer
> detects AIS-P or UNEQ-P or TIM-P or PLM-P and is terminated
> at the NSP (i.e. PTE), it sends AIS-V to the VT Layer. Note,
> a non-intrusive monitor only detects failures, it must not do
> AIS insertion."
>
> 6.1.2 Unequipped Indication
> - minor edit to add test signal differentiation:
> "The declaration of SPE/VT unequipped MUST conform to
> [GR253], [SONET], or [G806] and [G783]. [GR253] detection is
> based on the presence of an unequipped Signal Label.
> [SONET]/SDH detection is based on the presence of an
> unequipped Signal Label and an all zeros Trail Trace
> Identifier (TTI) to distinguish the presence of an unequipped
> signal or a [SONET] test signal (Supervisory-Unequipped [G707])."
>
> - suggest to remove the next paragraph "STS PTE shall detect
> an STS Path Unequipped (UNEQ-P) defect..". The
> detection/clearing definition used for the UNEQ defect is
> based on GR253, G783 has a different defect detection. As AIS
> defect detection is also not included in the draft, the first
> paragraph referring to the appropriate standards is sufficient.
>
> 9.1 Near-end Performance Monitors
> - suggest adding a CEP-NE failure similar to the CEP-FE
> failure (section 9.2),
> "CEP Near-end (CEP-NE) failure is declared after 2.5 +/- 0.5
> seconds of Type 2 CEP defect, and cleared after 10 seconds
> free of CEP defect state. Sending notification to the OS for
> CEP failure is local policy."
>
> 10 Payload Compression Options
> - suggest adding a sentence on use of DBA (at end of 2nd
> paragraph) to clarify:
> "The use of DBA will be dependent on network architectures
> e.g. support of Tandem Connection Monitoring, test signals."
>
> Regards,
> Deborah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-admin@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:25 AM
> To: Ron Cohen
> Cc: PWE3 (IETF)
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-05.txt - Last Call
>
>
> This formally starts the two week Last Call process.
>
> Last Call will end Wednesday 12th May
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> Ron Cohen wrote:
> > Dear PWE3ers
> >
> > The updated CEP draft is now available at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-05.txt
> >
> > Below please find the list of modification made since the
> 04 version.
> > The authors believe the draft is now ready for last call.
> >
> > 1. Section 11: Signaling of CEP pseudo-wires: Added
> mandatory/optional
> > attribute for each parameter. Clarified which error codes
> are returned
> > when signaling fails and referenced the IANA draft for
> actual values.
> > Added a table of values for the CEP/TDM bit rate parameter. Fixed
> > language.
> >
> > 2. Draft 04 appendix B discussing actual payload sizes of fractional
> > payload compression modes was folded into section 10. This removed
> > duplication of data and clarified in-context the actual
> payload sizes.
> > Verify that the draft body (without appendixes) includes
> all information
> > required for implementation and interoperability.
> >
> > 3. Removed non-ASCII characters. Aligned formats and
> language (DS-3, DS3
> > and T3 to T3). Removed empty open issues section. Added VT
> payload size
> > table. Updated authors contact addresses.
> >
> > 4. Security section rewritten
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ron & Co-authors
> >
> > Ron Cohen
> > CTO
> > Lycium Networks
> > Mobile: 650.823.7672
> > Mobile: +972.55.245.104
> > Tel: 650.234.4010
> > Fax: 650.854.8183
> >
> > =====================================================
> > This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
> > confidential information intended only for its
> addressee(s). If you are
> > not the addressee of this message, any reading, disclosure, copying,
> > printing, distribution or forwarding by you of this message or its
> > content or attachments is strictly forbidden. In such case, please
> > notify us immediately by replying to this message or by calling
> > 650.234.4010 and delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3