Subject: Call for Frame-relay WG document.

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:51:48 -0600

Hello!

I would like to ask the PWE3 WG to accept the ID:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-01.txt

As as PWE3 WG document for the frame-relay encapsulation charter requirement.

We feel this work has progressed sufficiently , and is the result of many PWE3 
contributors that at this time it should be accepted as a WG document.

Thanks .

Luca Martini

---

From: "Claude Kawa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:20:46 -0400

It has been three weeks since Luca Martini suggested to accept the following
frame relay/PWE3 draft as a working group draft. Is there any objection? If
not we should proceed with the request.

Thanks

Claude Kawa 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luca Martini [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] Call for Frame-relay WG document.

Hello!

As as PWE3 WG document for the frame-relay encapsulation charter
requirement.

We feel this work has progressed sufficiently , and is the result of many
PWE3 
contributors that at this time it should be accepted as a WG document.

Thanks .

Luca Martini

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:47:08 +0100

Although I am generally supportive of this document, I have some 
comments on the draft (see below). Of these points, the first
two need to addressed (or the plan to address them needs to be 
agreed) before this becomes a WG draft. The other points are 
just normal technical issues that need to be addressed before 
final closure.

Stewart

1) The title should reflect the scope, or the scope should reflect
the title  - mpls or ip and mpls?

               "Frame Relay Encapsulation over Pseudo-Wires
                   draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-01.txt"

2) This work also needs to align with the frame relay drafts that
Mark Townsley et al have been woring on - either by adjustment
of scope or incorporation.

3) Please use another acronym for the PLD and not [LYR] :)

4) I think we need to prune the terminology section to just
FR new terms. This is a  general observation on a number of docs.

5) Do we need the requirements section (sect 4)?

6)      "3. Frame ordering: Must preserve FR frames order.
Must is too strong, we know that some networks as happy without
it. "

If an application claims order support, it must work, but
I do not think it is a MUST.

7)        "Sequence number (Bit 16 to 31):
            If it is not used, it is set to zero by the sender and
            ignored by the receiver. Otherwise it specifies the sequence
            number of a FRoPW packet. A circular list of sequence
            numbers is used. A sequence number takes a value from 1 to
            65535 (2**16-1). Arithmetic modulo 2**16 is performed to
            generate a new sequence number. The value of zero indicates
            that the sequence number field is not used."

In some document there should be an applicability statement regarding the
suitability of a 16 bit sequence number.

8) I think that DE bit setting is an NSP function, and so outside the PWE3
scope. PWE3 should transmit the bit unmodified. The same applies to FECN 
and BECN.

9) "The initial packet transmitted on the frame relay PW must use sequence 
number 1." - I am not sure that this is a must.

10) These diagrams do not conform to the IETF bit order notation, and 
this could lead to confusion. I suggest that you use the diagram in 
<draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-01.txt>   

 bit 8  7   6   5   4   3   2   1    bit   8  7   6   5   4   3   2   1
   +-------------------------------+  +-------------------------------+
   |   Upper DLCI          |C/R| 0 |  |   Upper DLCI          |C/R| 0 |
   +-------------------------------   +-------------------------------+
   |  Lower DLCI   | F | B | DE| 1 |  |   DLCI        | F | B | DE| 0 |
   +-------------------------------+  +-------------------------------+
   |                               |  |           DLCI            | 0 |
   :  Q.922  Information field     :  +-------------------------------+
   :    (i.e. FR payload)          :  |          Lower DLCI   | 0 | 1 |
   |                               |  +-------------------------------+
   +-------------------------------+  |                               |
                                      :  Q.922  Information field     :
                                      :    (i.e. FR payload)          :
                                      |                               |
                                      +-------------------------------+

    (a) With 10 bits for the DLCI      (b) With 23 bits for the DLCI

11) I think that a single section should be used to cover requiremensta and
applicability (ie Frame relay service over pseudo-wires)

---

From: "Claude Kawa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:18:44 -0400

Reply with some questions for clarification are in-line preceded by [CK].

In general I agree with the comments, in particular points 1 and 2.

If there are no objections do we make the next version of the draft
addressing Stewart Bryant's comments a WG draft?

Thanks

Claude

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:47 AM
To: Kawa, Claude [CAR:CS40:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]; Luca Martini
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Call for Frame-relay WG document.

Stewart

[CK] Are we referring to the title "Frame Relay Encapsulation over
Pseudo-Wires " or the draft Id
"draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-01.txt"? 

If it is the title we are open to suggestion.

if it is the draft Id, we agree that it does not reflect the scope. We used
the previous Id (draft-martini-...) with a new version number. With a
working group draft this situation will be corrected.

[CK] OK. I counted three drafts:  

1-Frame-Relay Pseudo-Wire Extensions for L2TP
2-Frame-Relay Pseudo-Wire Extensions for L2TP  
3-Pseudowires and L2TPv3

Some (if not all) of them came after we uploaded the "martini FR/PWE3" or at
the same time.

We will address them in the next version with the exception of the control
aspects since we are limiting ourselves in this draft to the encapsulation
only. Is this agreeable?  

[CK] OK will use PLD

[CK] Agree. There was a suggestion (by Danny) to remove the common
terminolgy from the various drafts and to refer to the requirement and
framework drafts.

[CK] This section is intended to show what the PE will/should/... provide as
a service.
It can be removed if we do not want to list what the PEs will provide and
the users will get or as suggested below it can merge with an applicability
statement. 

[CK] OK we will change the wording

[CK] OK. This apply to the other drafts also (ATM, ETh in particular)

[CK]  Ok in principle but need to think about this point.

[CK] Agree to have the right statement in the draft but need to think more
whether 1 is the first value or not and what is the impact.

[CK} Ok they were done without thinking about the ITU vs IETF bit order. 

[CK] Agree. The idea of section 11 is to become an applicability statement.
It is a good idea to include in one section the requirements and the
apllicability statement.

With the above comments do we agree update the draft
"draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-01.txt" and make it a PWE3 WG draft?

Thanks

Claude