Subject: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt

From: "Saha, Sayandeb" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:09:50 -0400

Hi ALL,
I noticed the following in section 4 of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt .

 The example number 16 is ...

16. An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed
   by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 48, NVC with
   value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 10 to an STS-48
   Elementary Signal.

It should be 

   An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed
   by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 48, NVC with
   value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 10 to an STS-1 SPE
   Elementary Signal.

The example number 17 is ...

17. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 768,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an
   STS-768 Elementary Signal.

It should be 

   An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 768,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an
   STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

Regards
-Sayan

---

From: "Mannie, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:07:40 +0200

Dear Sayan,

Thanks for the comments. However note that when requesting transparency for
an STS-48 signal for instance, the signal type to use is STS-48. You cant'
concatenate STS-1's since concatenation of STS-1 is not defined, but
concatenation of STS-1 SPE's is. If you ask the concatenation of 48 x STS-1
SPE's you are not speaking about the frame with its overhead, so you cannot
request transparency. So we took the decision to use well defined signal
types when requesting transparency (e.g. STS-48). And we took the convention
to indicate in NCC the number of SPE's in that signal that must be
concatenated. It took us some time to find a way to code each possible
signal in a non ambiguous way. So I the original examples are correct.

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Saha, Sayandeb [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:10 PM
To: Mannie, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt 

Hi ALL,

It should be 

It should be 

Regards
-Sayan

---

From: "Mannie, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:07:40 +0200

Dear Sayan,

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Saha, Sayandeb [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:10 PM
To: Mannie, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt 

Hi ALL,

It should be 

It should be 

Regards
-Sayan

---

From: Heiles Juergen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:36:37 +0200

Eric,

that was one point I commented onthe draft version of the Sonet/SDH document. Requesting section/line overhead transparency but limiting the paylaod to a STS-48-c-SPE doesn't make much sense to me. Transparency at the line/section layer but not at the path layer. Ok you could code it, but not everything you can combine is usefull and we better avoid to define such examples.

Regards

Juergen

> From:	Mannie, Eric [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:08 PM
> To:	'Saha, Sayandeb'
> Subject:	RE: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
> 
> Dear Sayan,
>

---

From: "Mannie, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 09:42:04 +0200

Hello Juergen,

>Requesting section/line overhead transparency but limiting the paylaod to a
STS-48-c-SPE doesn't make much sense to me.

An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is just an example to
illustrate the coding, not more as you said. That's right that this type of
signal is probably not very useful, it is not always easy rto find coding
examples for complex cases that make sense. But anyway, if somebody wants to
have a transparent STS-48c he can.

Of course if you want to have another "organisation" for the payload you can
provision an STS-48 circuit and then structure it as you like.

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Heiles Juergen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:37 AM
To: Mannie, Eric; 'Saha, Sayandeb'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Editorial comments on
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt

Eric,

that was one point I commented onthe draft version of the Sonet/SDH
document. Requesting section/line overhead transparency but limiting the
paylaod to a STS-48-c-SPE doesn't make much sense to me. Transparency at the
line/section layer but not at the path layer. Ok you could code it, but not
everything you can combine is usefull and we better avoid to define such
examples.

Regards

Juergen