From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:17:28 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772DB28C7D9
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:16:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 2po234rfID8L for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B241C28EB11
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:03:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder
From: mailman-owner@ietf.org
To: pwe3-archive@megatron.ietf.org
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:01:28 -0800
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id:
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing
list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use
it to change it or unsubscribe from a list.
You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such
changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of
the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the
word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to
you with instructions.
If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to
mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks!
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3/pwe3-archive%40megatron.ietf.org
From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:18:15 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8FC28EA85
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:16:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id LS-BUCj9DD1d for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3355528EA82
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:03:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder
From: mailman-owner@ietf.org
To: pwe3-archive@megatron.ietf.org
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:01:27 -0800
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id:
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing
list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use
it to change it or unsubscribe from a list.
You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such
changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of
the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the
word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to
you with instructions.
If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to
mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks!
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3/pwe3-archive%40megatron.ietf.org
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 1 14:11:54 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9E228C31C;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 4HvgxgR+yipk; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21E33A68B1;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F011728C1E4
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fvbJ9VepePxK for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122FE3A63CA
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 5F8472680CE; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (VDSL-151-118-148-143.DNVR.QWEST.NET
[151.118.148.143]) (authenticated-user smtp)
(TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP;
for pwe3@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:13:26 -0700 (MST)
(envelope-from danny@tcb.net)
X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=151.118.148.143;
client-port=63798; syn-fingerprint=65535:56:1:64:M1316,N,W0,N,N,T,S;
data-bytes=0
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
References: <20080201183656.3F5193A693A@core3.amsl.com>
Message-Id:
From: Danny McPherson
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:13:06 -0700
To: pwe3
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 71st
IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
FYI...
Begin forwarded message:
> From: ietf-secretariat@ietf.org
> Date: February 1, 2008 11:36:56 AM MST
> To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 71st IETF
> Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA
>
> There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 71st
> IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA:
>
> February 18th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
> Internet-Draft Submissions
>
> All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
> February 18th at 9:00 AM ET (14:00 UTC/GMT).The only exception is for
> version -00 WG drafts that replace existing non-WG drafts. Such
> drafts
> may be submitted until the cutoff date for version -01 and higher
> drafts.
> As always, all initial submissions with a filename beginning with
> "draft-ietf" must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they
> can be processed or announced. The Secretariat would appreciate
> receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, February 11th at 9:00 AM ET
> (14:00 UTC/GMT).
>
> February (14:00 UTC/GMT): Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version
> -01 and higher)
> Internet-Draft Submissions
>
> All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted
> by Monday, February 25th at 9:00 AM ET (14:00 UTC/GMT). Version -00
> WG drafts
> that replace existing non-WG drafts must be submitted by this
> cutoff date as well.
>
> Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective
> cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts
> directory or announced until on or after Monday, March 10th at 9:00
> AM ET (13:00 UTC/GMT), when Internet-Draft posting resumes. Please
> do not wait until
> the last minute to submit.
>
> The Secretariat encourages you to submit your Internet-Drafts via the
> Internet-Draft Submission Tool (IDST) https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> idst/upload.cgi.
> If you are unable to do so, then you may still submit your Internet-
> Drafts manually by sending them to internet-drafts@ietf.org. If you
> are submitting a version -00 WG draft that replaces non-WG draft, then
> you must submit it manually as the current IDST cannot handle
> replacements. Please be sure to state that one draft replaces another
> in the cover note that accompanies your submission. Also, please note
> that the IDST will not accept drafts submitted after their respective
> cutoff dates.
>
> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any
> questions or concerns, then please send a message to
> internet-drafts@ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant
> dates
> for the 71st IETF Meeting can be found at http://www.ietf.org/
> meetings/71-cutoff_dates.html.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 3 10:15:54 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5444B3A6CEF;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.92
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.435,
BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=1,
J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id DNz2z2w3eBv3; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A00F3A6CC8;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2244E3A6CC8
for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id WRDKi7hJICds for ;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu139-omc2-s6.blu139.hotmail.com
(blu139-omc2-s6.blu139.hotmail.com [65.55.175.176])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B7F3A6C89
for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU108-W54 ([65.55.162.185]) by
blu139-omc2-s6.blu139.hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:17:22 -0800
Message-ID:
X-Originating-IP: [99.224.24.94]
From: Chad McCarthy
To:
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:17:21 -0500
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2008 18:17:22.0062 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0505DAE0:01C86691]
Subject: [PWE3] Clarification on L/M bits
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1289651269=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
--===============1289651269==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_0c9bc921-b650-452c-9ce6-829a69cbf79c_"
--_0c9bc921-b650-452c-9ce6-829a69cbf79c_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following question is regarding the L/M bit description outlined within=
RFC5086. When the M bit is set to "10", must we play out "as received"? I=
t seems like the obvious answer is Yes, considering the following entry in =
"Table 1. Interpretation of bits L and M in the CESoPSN CW": | 0 | 10 | =
CESoPSN data packet, RDI condition of the AC. All | | | | CESoPS=
N implementations MUST support this codepoint: | | | | payload MUST=
be played out "as received", and, if | | | | so configured, th=
e receiving CESoPSN IWF instance | | | | SHOULD be able to comma=
nd the NSP to force the RDI | | | | condition on the outgoing TDM=
trunk. | But, later on in section "6.2. IWF Operation" , =
it doesn't list play out as received as an option, unless it's covered unde=
r "None". Is this the case? 6.2. IWF OperationIf the data packets received =
are marked with L bit cleared and M bits set to '10' or with R bit set, the=
CE-bound CESoPSN IWF will be locally configured to command its local NSP t=
o perform one of the following o None (MUST be supported by all the im=
plementations) o Transmit the RAI pattern towards the local CE on the E1=
or actions:T1 trunk carrying the local attachment circuit (support o=
f this action is RECOMMENDED) o Send the "Channel Idle" signal to =
the local CE for all the DS0 channels comprising the local attachment =
circuit (support of this action is OPTIONAL and requires also that the=
CE-bound CES IWF replaces the actually received payload with the equi=
valent amount of the locally configured "idle" bit pattern. Thanks in =
advance,Chad=20
_________________________________________________________________
--_0c9bc921-b650-452c-9ce6-829a69cbf79c_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following question is regarding the L/M bit description outli=
ned within RFC5086. When the M bit is set to "10", must we play out "as received"?
It seems=
like the obvious answer is Yes, considering the following entry in "Table =
1. Interpretation of bits L and M in the CESoPSN CW":
| 0 | 10 | CESoPSN data packet, RDI condition of the AC. All&=
nbsp; |
|&n=
bsp; | &nbs=
p; | CESoPSN implementations MUST support this codepoint: |
| | &nb=
sp; | payload MUST be played out "as received", and, if |
|<=
SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> | | so configured, the receiving=
CESoPSN IWF instance &n=
bsp; |
| | | SHO=
ULD be able to command the NSP to force the RDI |
|=
| &n=
bsp; | condition on the outgoing TDM trunk. &n=
bsp; |=
But, later o=
n in section "6.2. IWF Operation" , it doesn't list play out as received as=
an option, unless it's covered under "None". Is this the case?
6.2. IWF OperationIf the d=
ata packets received are marked with L bit cleared and M bits set to '10' o=
r with R bit set, the CE-bound CESoPSN IWF will be locally configured to command its local =
NSP to perform one of the following&n=
bsp;
None (MUST be =
supported by all the implementations)
<=
SPAN style=3D"mso-bidi-font-family: 'Courier New'"> o Transmit the =
RAI pattern towards the local CE on the E1 or actions:T1
trunk carrying the local attachment circuit (support of this=
action is=
RECOMMENDED)
=
o Send the "Channel =
Idle" signal to the local CE for all the DS0
channels comprising the loca=
l attachment circuit (support of this
=
action is OPTIONAL and requires also=
that the CE-bound CES IWF
&nbs=
p; replaces the actually received payload with the=
equivalent amount
=
of the locally configured "idle" bit pattern.
<=
FONT face=3D"Times New Roman, Times, Serif" size=3D1>
Thanks in advance,
Chad
=
=
--_0c9bc921-b650-452c-9ce6-829a69cbf79c_--
--===============1289651269==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--===============1289651269==--
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 3 11:21:42 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D82E3A6CEF;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=1,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id rFtelWx9f38X; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415943A6C1F;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424A93A6C1F
for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 1B2aaa+-vV-m for ;
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eci-iron1.ecitele.com (eci-iron1.ecitele.com [147.234.242.117])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E413A6BE4
for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown (HELO ILPTAM01.ecitele.com) ([147.234.244.44])
by eci-iron1.ecitele.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2008 21:46:56 +0200
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) by
ILPTAM01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:23:11 +0200
Received: from ILPTMAIL01.ecitele.com (147.234.245.210) by
ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com (147.234.245.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server id
8.1.240.5; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:23:10 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:23:10 +0200
Message-ID: <64122293A6365B4A9794DC5636F9ACFD0252D71A@ilptex01.ecitele.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Clarification on L/M bits
Thread-Index: AchmkQw4tGA3LLcZQAyThGtQDeAlNQACCcrY
References:
From: Alexander Vainshtein
To: "Chad McCarthy" ,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2008 19:23:11.0356 (UTC)
FILETIME=[36FC4BC0:01C8669A]
Cc: israel@axerra.com
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Clarification on L/M bits
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0904288225=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
--===============0904288225==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8669A.36805D52"
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8669A.36805D52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chad,
Please see answers inline below.
=20
Regards,
Sasha Vainshtein
________________________________
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Chad McCarthy
Sent: Sun 2/3/2008 8:17 PM
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [PWE3] Clarification on L/M bits
The following question is regarding the L/M bit description outlined =
within RFC5086. When the M bit is set to "10", must we play out "as =
received"?=20
It seems like the obvious answer is Yes, considering the following entry =
in "Table 1. Interpretation of bits L and M in the CESoPSN CW":
| 0 | 10 | CESoPSN data packet, RDI condition of the AC. All |
| | | CESoPSN implementations MUST support this codepoint: |
| | | payload MUST be played out "as received", and, if |
| | | so configured, the receiving CESoPSN IWF instance |
| | | SHOULD be able to command the NSP to force the RDI |
| | | condition on the outgoing TDM trunk. |
=20
But, later on in section "6.2. IWF Operation" , it doesn't list play out =
as received as an option, unless it's covered under "None". Is this the =
case?
[Sasha] Yes, this is the case. I.e., L=3D0 and M=3D01 usually results in =
playout of
valid payload. On top of that, it is possible (if the IWF has been so =
configured)=20
to transmit RAI towards the local CE (note that RAI is a certain pattern =
in the=20
framing, not in the payload.)
6.2. IWF Operation
If the data packets received are marked with L bit cleared and M bits =
set to '10' or with R bit set, the CE-bound CESoPSN IWF will be locally =
configured to command its local NSP to perform one of the following =20
o None (MUST be supported by all the implementations)
o Transmit the RAI pattern towards the local CE on the E1 or =
actions:T1
trunk carrying the local attachment circuit (support of this
action is RECOMMENDED)
=20
o Send the "Channel Idle" signal to the local CE for all the DS0
channels comprising the local attachment circuit (support of this
action is OPTIONAL and requires also that the CE-bound CES IWF
replaces the actually received payload with the equivalent amount
of the locally configured "idle" bit pattern.
=20
Thanks in advance,
Chad
=20
________________________________
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8669A.36805D52
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Hi =
Chad,
=0A=
Please see answers inline =
below.
=0A=
=0A=
Regards,
=0A=
=
Sasha Vainshtein
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org on =
behalf of Chad McCarthy
Sent: Sun 2/3/2008 8:17 =
PM
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [PWE3] Clarification =
on L/M bits
=0A=
The =
following question is regarding the L/M bit description outlined within =
RFC5086. When the M bit is set to "10", must we play out "as received"? =
It seems like the obvious answer is Yes, considering the =
following entry in "Table 1. Interpretation of bits L and M in the =
CESoPSN CW":
=
| 0 | 10 | CESoPSN data packet, RDI condition =
of the AC. All =
|
| =
| | CESoPSN implementations =
MUST support this codepoint: =
|
| =
| | payload MUST be played =
out "as received", and, if =
|
| =
| | so configured, the =
receiving CESoPSN IWF instance =
|
| =
| | SHOULD be able to =
command the NSP to force the RDI =
|
| =
| | condition on the =
outgoing TDM =
trunk. &=
nbsp; =
|
But, later on in =
section "6.2. IWF Operation" , it doesn't list play out as received as =
an option, unless it's covered under "None". Is this the =
case?
[Sasha] Yes, this is the case. I.e., L=3D0 and M=3D01 =
usually results in playout of
valid payload. On top of that, =
it is possible (if the IWF has been so configured)
to =
transmit RAI towards the local CE (note that RAI is a certain pattern in =
the
framing, not in the payload.)
6.2. IWF =
Operation
If the data packets received are marked with L bit cleared =
and M bits set to '10' or with R bit set, the CE-bound CESoPSN IWF will =
be locally configured to command its local NSP to perform =
one of the =
following =
o None (MUST be supported by =
all the =
implementations)
o Transmit the RAI pattern towards the local CE on the E1 or =
actions:T1
trunk carrying the =
local attachment circuit (support of =
this
action is =
RECOMMENDED)
=
o Send the "Channel Idle" signal to the local =
CE for all the DS0
channels comprising =
the local attachment circuit (support of =
this
action is OPTIONAL =
and requires also that the CE-bound CES =
IWF
replaces the actually =
received payload with the equivalent =
amount
of the locally =
configured "idle" bit =
pattern.
Thanks in =
advance,
Chad
=0A=
=0A=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8669A.36805D52--
--===============0904288225==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--===============0904288225==--
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 4 03:46:34 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DE93A6EE1;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.347
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093,
BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hr7W-cmjc4TY; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC693A6E6C;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68F73A6E6C
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id aQ0ND8TtEbT2 for ;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gws04.hcl.in (chn-hclin-gws02.hcl.in [203.105.186.20])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A03F3A6C87
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gws04.hcl.in (gws04 [10.249.64.135])
by localhost.hcl.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D2F360019
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:17:54 +0530 (IST)
Received: from chn-egw02-out.corp.hcl.in (unknown [10.249.64.38])by
gws04.hcl.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98A8360039for ;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:17:54 +0530 (IST)
Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS02.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([10.101.26.16]) by
chn-egw02-out.corp.hcl.in with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:17:54 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:17:35 +0530
Message-ID:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PW OAM Mapping context: Is VCCV-Ping will always be in no
reply mode.?
Thread-Index: AcgxAWGHpuNEhftiTz2hjxk+AMGFRg2HyFSg
References:
From: "Raman Rangaswamy"
To:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2008 11:47:54.0599 (UTC)
FILETIME=[C757B770:01C86723]
X-imss-version: 2.049
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-scanInfo: M:T L:E SM:1
X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-15.6491 TC:01 TRN:50 TV:5.0.1023(15706.001)
X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0
X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000)
Cc: "Vijayanand C - TLS, Chennai."
Subject: [PWE3] PW OAM Mapping context: Is VCCV-Ping will always be in no
reply mode.?
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0898091177=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0898091177==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C86723.BC56B153"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86723.BC56B153
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
=20
Can I assume from the below PW OAM message mapping draft section that,
"For PW fault detection, VCCV-Ping will always be in no reply mode,
running periodically" =20
=20
Draft:=20
Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-05=2Etxt
=20
Draft Section:
6=2E1 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit
- It detects a loss of PW connectivity, including label errors,
through VCCV-BFD or VCCV-PING in no reply mode=2E
=20
Thanks,
Raman R
=20
=20
DISCLAIMER:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and=
intended for the named recipient(s) only=2E
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its=
affiliates=2E Any views or opinions presented in=20
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect=
the opinions of HCL or its affiliates=2E
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,=
distribution and / or publication of=20
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail=
is strictly prohibited=2E If you have=20
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender=
immediately=2E Before opening any mail and=20
attachments please check them for viruses and defect=2E
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86723.BC56B153
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
Can I assume from the below PW OAM=
message
mapping draft section that,
“For
PW fault detection, VCCV-Ping will always be in no reply mode, running=
periodically”
=
Draft:=
Pseudo Wire
(PW) OAM Message Mapping
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-05=
=2Etxt
Draft=
Section:
6=
=2E1 PW Forward Defect Entry/Exit
- It detects a loss=
of PW
connectivity, including label errors,
through VCCV-BFD or VCCV-PING in no reply mode=
=2E
Thanks,
DISCLAIMER:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and=
intended for the named recipient(s) only=2E
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its=
affiliates=2E Any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect=
the opinions of HCL or its affiliates=2E
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,=
distribution and / or publication of
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail=
is strictly prohibited=2E If you have
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender=
immediately=2E Before opening any mail and
attachments please check them for viruses and defect=2E
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------
|
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86723.BC56B153--
--===============0898091177==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--===============0898091177==--
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 6 03:18:11 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5F13A6CD8;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 2WLpfKpmL05O; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45823A6C7C;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pwe3@mail.ietf.org
Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 30)
id 8E53A3A7907; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: iab-chair@iab.org, chair@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net, townsley@cisco.com,
rcallon@juniper.net, dward@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com,
loa@pi.se, danny@arbor.net, stbryant@cisco.com
From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13)
Message-Id: <20080205190551.8E53A3A7907@mail.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:48:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:18:10 -0800
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, sebek@itu.int, iab@iab.org, pwe3@ietf.org,
iesg@ietf.org, hhelvoort@huawei.com, tsbsg13@itu.int
Subject: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,
"Endorsement of selection of option 1 agreed in Stuttgart meeting"
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sebek@itu.int, tsbsg13@itu.int, hhelvoort@huawei.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Title: Endorsement of selection of option 1 agreed in Stuttgart meeting
Submission Date: 2008-02-05
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=416
Please reply by 2008-09-01
From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13)
To: IETF IESG, IAB, PWE3 WG, MPLS WG, routing and internet Area Directors(iab-chair@iab.org, chair@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net, townsley@cisco.com, rcallon@juniper.net, dward@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, loa@pi.se, danny@arbor.net, stbryant@cisco.com)
Cc: iab@iab.org
iesg@ietf.org
pwe3@ietf.org
mpls@lists.ietf.org
Reponse Contact: sebek@itu.int
tsbsg13@itu.int
hhelvoort@huawei.com
Technical Contact: hhelvoort@huawei.com
Purpose: For action
Body:
Attachment(s):
Endorsement of selection of option 1 agreed in Stuttgart meeting (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file523.pdf)
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 6 03:18:16 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9433A6CB3;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.191,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yg6zs4Giz9QR; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A923A6CA8;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:18:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pwe3@mail.ietf.org
Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 30)
id 357DF28C2CD; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:45:21 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: danny@arbor.net, stbryant@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, loa@pi.se
From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13)
Message-Id: <20080205194522.357DF28C2CD@mail.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:45:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:18:10 -0800
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, sebek@itu.int, sob@harvard.edu, pwe3@ietf.org,
dward@cisco.com, townsley@cisco.com, hhelvoort@huawei.com, tsbsg13@itu.int
Subject: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement, "Status of T-MPLS OAM and label 14"
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sebek@itu.int, tsbsg13@itu.int, hhelvoort@huawei.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Title: Status of T-MPLS OAM and label 14
Submission Date: 2008-02-05
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=420
From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13)
To: IETF PWE3 and MPLS WG(danny@arbor.net, stbryant@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, loa@pi.se)
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net
dward@cisco.com
jari.arkko@piuha.net
townsley@cisco.com
sob@harvard.edu
pwe3@ietf.org
mpls@lists.ietf.org
Reponse Contact: sebek@itu.int
tsbsg13@itu.int
hhelvoort@huawei.com
Technical Contact: hhelvoort@huawei.com
Purpose: For information
Body:
Attachment(s):
Status of T-MPLS OAM and label 14, and attachment (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file527.zip)
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 6 07:52:24 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9344E3A6F8D;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id xvKXYTx3d3-j; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917D63A6ECE;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDA63A6E71;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id olQD+BepMIoy; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638E73A6E09;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:52:14 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,312,1199660400";
d="scan'208";a="4920623"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 16:53:45 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m16Frjuk026601;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:53:45 +0100
Received: from stewart-bryants-computer.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp132.cisco.com
[10.61.64.132])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m16FreKv006324;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:53:40 GMT
Message-ID: <47A9D804.20300@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:53:40 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pwe3 , mpls@ietf.org, Mark Townsley ,
Jari Arkko , Loa Andersson ,
"George Swallow (swallow)" ,
Danny McPherson , Ross Callon ,
David Ward
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: [PWE3] Proposed response to liaison 406
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
We were sent this liaison rather late in the day (9th Jan)
an need to get a response back in time for the SG15 meeting
next week. In the meantime there have been a whole bunch
of higher priority T-MPLS activities that have need priority
hence late response.
I drew the attention of the liaison to Yaakov Stein to review
the TDM material and Luca Martini to review the ATM material
and their commments are included verbatim.
The concerns about the semi-detailed redefinition of existing
texts and corresponding issues of difficulty of presentation
and normative reference conflict are mine. Please indicate
if I should tone this down.
I need to send this out friday evening my time.
Regards
Stewart
Thank you for your liaison of 9th January 2008 entitled
"Addition of ATM and PDH clients to T-MPLS "
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/406/
This rather short description of the packet processing is more
difficult to read than the descriptions found in either
the relevant RFCs or the corresponding Y series recommendations
as such we found it difficult to review. Rather than defining
the operations in semi-detail we would prefer that you simply
indicate the primary references and modes that you propose to
support and refer the reader there for the description. This
prevents any issue of conflicting definitions. In any case
there needs to be a clear indication that this is a subset
of existing IETF PWE3 and SG13 recommendations
and that their packet processing definitions are authoritative.
We are concerned that you only propose to use the structure
agnostic TDM mode. This mode has limitations which are
addressed by the structure aware modes jointly developed
in the IETF PWE3 Working Group and ITU-T SG13.
Please can we suggest that you add text explaining that the
structure-agnostic mode is not always the idea method of TDM
emulation and preferably include text describing the use of
the structure aware modes as described in Y.1413, RFC 5086
and RFC 5087.
In the case of ATM, please can you be more specific about
the exact type of PW that you intend to support. The
confusion arises as a result of the text at the end of
section 7.1.4 of the document which says:
" For the case of Mode 1
* Cell de-multiplexing according to the VPI value, including
unmatched VPI cell discard
* Remove the VPI field"
Since MODE 1 is defined as the N-to-One cell mode of [IETF RFC 4717] ,
this this text appears to be in error, and we believe that you should
call up
Mode 2.
There are some other items that are unclear in this section. The paper
discusses N-1 mode but then discusses multiple VP. Is the mode that you
wish to use what we call cell relay mode PW type 0x0003 ?
Reagrds etc
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 6 08:17:49 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC843A6FA4;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8lwoYKUyCr6T; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D603A6F98;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB6D3A6E5A
for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 1z8aKyQVFlhS for ;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247443A6F98
for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:04 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,312,1199660400";
d="scan'208";a="4924658"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 17:18:36 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m16GIatu013143;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:18:36 +0100
Received: from stewart-bryants-computer.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp132.cisco.com
[10.61.64.132])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m16GIZKv017081;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:18:35 GMT
Message-ID: <47A9DDDB.90100@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:18:35 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pwe3
References: <471DE78D.3010703@cisco.com>
<8CC6CEAB44F131478D3A7B429ECACD91085F7A@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To:
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: danny@tcb.net
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-06.txt Last Call
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
I would like to start a (hopefully) final last call on the
Fiber Channel draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-07
As you can see there are a couple of issues that David Black
raises. The first is easily fixed, the second is more
difficult. On the face of it the right thing to do is to
use a new status code, but on the other hand there are
only 31 values available so we need to be suitably
parsimonious.
If we do decide to us a common value with dynamic-ms-pw
I propose to make this the allocating document since
it will get to the IESG first.
Last call will close 29th Feb 2008, so please can
we have any additional comments by then.
Thanks
Stewart
Moran Roth wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> I would suggest to address the small clean-up issues David mentioned as
> part of the WGLC, since this may bring up more such issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Moran
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:16 PM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> Cc: danny@tcb.net
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-06.txt Last Call
>
> The -07 version of the FC-PW draft addresses most of the congestion
> control issue around CIR. There are still a few small things to clean
> up:
>
> (1) A reference needs to be cited for R_A_TOV and a sentence should be
> added to stat that the default value of R_A_TOV is 10 seconds. R_A_TOV
> is defined in section 20.2.1.4 of FC-FS-2:
>
> [FC-FS-2] "Fibre Channel Framing and Signaling-2 (FC-FS-2)",
> ANSI INCITS 424:2007, August 2006.
>
> (2) The PW status of "Bandwidth resources unavailable" is defined by
> draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw. This raises a couple of concerns:
> - The dynamic-ms-pw draft defines that PW status for PW
> setup failure when the requested bandwidth resources
> for the PS aren't available, and hence the PW can't
> be created. That status code is being used here for
> loss of bandwidth after the PW is up and running.
> I'm not sure whether that's a good idea, vs.
> defining a new PW status code.
> - The IANA registration of that PW status code is
> temporary because the dynamic-ms-pw draft is still
> in the pwe3 WG. If that PW status is to be re-used,
> a normative reference to the dynamic-ms-pw draft
> appears to be needed from the FC PW draft.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 6 09:47:21 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B103A706D;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id k94T1J1Idm8v; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1E03A7060;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5903A701D;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id MSWLeXFCWVUy; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0EA3A7062;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,313,1199660400";
d="scan'208";a="443"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 18:48:09 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m16Hm9lR005724;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:48:09 +0100
Received: from stewart-bryants-computer.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp441.cisco.com
[10.61.65.185])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m16Hm8Kv017919;
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:48:08 GMT
Message-ID: <47A9F2D9.8060608@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:48:09 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-secretary@ietf.org, Mark Townsley
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: Yaakov Stein , pwe3 ,
Danny McPherson
Subject: [PWE3] PROTO Statement:
draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-06.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-06.txt
The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
of this document.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Shepherd. I have
reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
This document (-04 revision) has been reviewed by the WG. A detailed
list of all of this issues and the resolution was presented to the
WG and published as (-05) and a minor editorial was published one
week later (-06) which is the version that we propose to advance.
The proposed advancement of this document was discussed at the last IETF.
I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document, although
it needs a minor edit to change the affiliation of one of the authors
which we can do as an editor's note.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
This document is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
WG. There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
and it is generally supported across the WG.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.
(It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
document.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the
document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
I have reviewed nits output on IETF tools, and there is nothing
that should prevent this document advancing.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
Yes.
Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative
references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
All references are RFCs (two are listed under draft names, but have
recently advanced. This will be fixed in the edit phase).
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a
reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred
with
the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint
the
needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
Yes.
Also note that we have been requested by the authors to provide
early allocation of three Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type values
and I propose that we should do this.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
Not applicable
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document defines extension to the PWE3 control protocol [RFC4447]
and PWE3 IANA allocations [RFC4446] required for setup of TDM
(RFC4553, RFC5086 and RFC5087) pseudowires in MPLS networks.
Working Group Summary
This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG
and there are no outstanding issues.
Protocol Quality
This is a simple extension to RFC4447 to allow the provisioning of
some additional (well known) PW types using the already established
rules and procedures.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 05:42:31 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545A63A7893;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:42:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id HM0oM8XRNWvY; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FA03A75A6;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522B73A77EB
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 28mqnsA7Mbzc for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC7A3A6FD2
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 14:43:13 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m17DhDPt008526;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:43:13 +0100
Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-83.cisco.com
(dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-83.cisco.com [64.103.65.83])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m17Dh8aR022364;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:43:13 GMT
Message-ID: <47AB0AEC.7000003@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:43:08 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Nadeau , Carlos Pignataro
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: pwe3
Subject: [PWE3] Comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-00
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Tom, Carlos
Sorry this is so late. I started doing the review just before I went
to Seoul, and have only just noticed that I had not finished and sent it.
Stewart
Abstract
This document describes new Connectivity Verification (CV) types for
using Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
SB> I think you mean "types using"
The new BFD CV Types are PSN-agnostic, and hence applicable for both
MPLS and L2TPv3 PSNs. This document concerns itself with the BFD
VCCV operation over Single-Segment Pseudowires (SS-PW).
VCCV can support several Connectivity Verification types (CV types)
or protocols. This section defines new CV types for use when BFD is
used as the VCCV payload. These types apply to both MPLS and L2TPv3
Pseudowire demultiplexors.
SB> The above two paras seem to overlap/repeat themselves - you should
SB> think about rephrasing.
BFD CV Types:
The defined values for the different BFD CV Types for MPLS and
L2TPv3 PWs are:
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires May 12, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV November 2007
Bit (Value) Description
============ ==========================================
Bit 2 (0x04) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only.
Bit 3 (0x08) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault
SB> Not sure we have the term AC/PW defined
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation
When heart-beat indication is necessary for one or more PWs, the
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [I-D.ietf-bfd-base ] provides
a means of continuous monitoring of the PW data path and propagation
of forward and reverse defect indications.
In order to use BFD, both ends of the PW connection must have
signaled the existence of a control channel and the ability to run
BFD on it (see Section 3.3 and Section 4 ).
SB> What about static config?
Once a node has both
signaled and received signaling from its peer of these capabilities,
it begins sending BFD control packets. The packets are sent on the
SB> The BFD packets?
VCCV control channel. The use of the control channel provides the
SB> the VCCV control channel?
When the downstream PE (D-PE) does not receive control messages from
SB> BFD control messages?
2. BFD Encapsulation
This document defines two pairs of BFD CV Types (see Section 3 ) which
specify two ways in which a BFD connectivity verification packet may
be encapsulated over the VCCV control channel. Table 1 in
Section 3.3 summarizes the BFD CV Types.
SB> Do you mean two CV types, each with two methods of encapsulation?
However, when BFD CV Types of 0x10 or 0x20 are employed, the IP/UDP
headers are omitted from the BFD encapsulation.
SB> I think it might be to put this the other way round - to say
SB> what the encap form is, and then to say how it is identified
SB> in the signalling (if used).
In summary, if a PW Associated Channel Header is used, the Channel
Type can indicate IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057) for CV Types 0x04
and 0x08, or BFD without IP/UDP headers (0x0007) for CV Types 0x10
and 0x20.
SB> This is a section on encap, surely you just have to say that
SB> ACH MUST be used. Putting the type info here just confuses.
SB> you cover the type mapping later.
3.3. CV Types for BFD
Two distinctive pairs of CV Types are defined for BFD. Table 1
summarizes the BFD CV Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e.,
with and without IP/UDP headers) and by functionality (i.e., fault
detection only, or fault detection and status signaling).
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires May 12, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV November 2007
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| | Fault Detection | Fault Detection and |
| | Only | Status Signaling |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| BFD with IP/UDP | 0x04 | 0x08 |
| Headers | | |
| | | |
| BFD without IP/UDP | 0x10 | 0x20 |
| Headers | | |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
Table 1: Bitmask Values for BFD CV Types
Given the bidirectional nature of BFD, before selecting a given BFD
CV Type capability to be used, there MUST be a match in the given CV
Type capability advertised and received. That is, only BFD CV Types
that were both advertised and received are available to be selected.
Additionally, only one BFD CV Type can be used (selecting a BFD CV
Type excludes all the remaining BFD CV Types).
The following list enumerates restrictions and their corollaries on
the usage of BFD CV Types:
1. CV Types 0x08 and 0x20, SHOULD NOT be used when a control
protocol such as LDP [RFC4447 ] or L2TPV3 [RFC3931 ] is available
that can signal the AC/PW status to the remote endpoint of the
PW.
A. In the case of CV Type 0x08 or 0x20, the AC and PW status is
conveyed via BFD status codes as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map ].
2. Similarly, CV Types 0x04 and 0x10 SHOULD NOT be used when there
is no control protocol available to signal the AC/PW status.
A. In the case of type 0x04 or 0x10, BFD is used exclusively to
detect faults on the PW and the status of those faults are to
be conveyed using some means other than BFD, such as using
LDP status messages when using MPLS as a transport (see
Section 5.4 of [RFC4447] ), or the Circuit Status AVP in an
L2TPv3 SLI message for L2TPv3 (see Section 5.4.5 of
[RFC3931] ).
SB> Would it be better to say the opposite type SHOULD be used rather
SB> than say it in the negative as SHOULD NOT?
3. Only a single BFD CV Type can be seleced and used.
4. Capability Selection
As already enumerated, when a control protocol that can signal the
AC/PW status is not available, CV Types CV Types 0x04 and 0x10 (i.e.,
for Fault Detection only) SHOULD NOT be used. When a control
protocol that can signal the AC/PW status (such as LDP [RFC4447 ] or
L2TPv3 [RFC3931 ]) is available, CV Types 0x08 and 0x20 (i.e., for
Fault Detection and Status Signaling) SHOULD NOT be used. All BFD CV
Types are mutually exclusive with the rest, selecting a BFD CV Type
prevents the use of any of the other three BFD CV Types.
SB> Again should we say it the other way round?
9. References
SB> Maybe I missed it but I could not see a protocol definition or a reference
SB> to protocol definition for BFD without UDP/IP
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 07:45:04 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135C63A7985;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:45:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id e6GN5bIoBe6F; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD1D3A768F;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:45:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 828AB3A768F; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20080207154501.828AB3A768F@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
--NextPart
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Application of Ethernet Pseudowires to MPLS Transport Networks
Author(s) : S. Bryant, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt
Pages : 13
Date : 2008-02-07
A requirement has been identified by the operator community for the
transparent carriage of the MPLS network of one party over the MPLS
network of another party. This document describes an IETF-
recommended method of satisfying this need using the existing RFC4448
PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire standard.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt
To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
access-type="mail-server";
server="mailserv@ietf.org"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-02-07074301.I-D@ietf.org>
ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
name="draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt";
site="ftp.ietf.org";
access-type="anon-ftp";
directory="internet-drafts"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-02-07074301.I-D\@ietf.org>
--OtherAccess--
--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--NextPart--
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 07:51:13 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E223A7A85;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:51:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id HdIHwwSFqHOC; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800C73A7A81;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:50:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA423A7A06
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hxzPZMkLg5ct for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747323A7A81
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 16:50:53 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m17ForW3030599;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:50:53 +0100
Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-83.cisco.com
(dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-83.cisco.com [64.103.65.83])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m17ForaR017781;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:50:53 GMT
Message-ID: <47AB28DC.2030400@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:50:52 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pwe3
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010202020601080409000006"
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Subject: [PWE3] [Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02]
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010202020601080409000006
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is just a refresh, with updated references (to get through nits)
and author affiliation change. There are no technical changes.
We need to figure out what to do with the draft in the light of various
discussions with ITU-T, in the meanwhile I just did the minimum to keep
it alive.
Stewart
--------------010202020601080409000006
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename*0="New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-";
filename*1="02.eml"
X-Account-Key: account3
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86])
by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id m17FicF02975
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:44:38 GMT
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196])
by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 07:44:37 -0800
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137])
by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m17FiXRe010115;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:44:33 -0800
Received: from sj-inbound-e.cisco.com (sj-inbound-e.cisco.com [128.107.243.14])
by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m17FhqaC024537;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:44:32 GMT
X-from-outside-Cisco: 64.170.98.86
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANO1qkdAqmJWnmdsb2JhbACQMQEBAQEBBgQGBwoYm1k
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,316,1199692800";
d="scan'208";a="14018748"
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([64.170.98.86])
by sj-inbound-e.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 07:44:32 -0800
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30)
id 972343A78A5; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:43:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: stbryant@cisco.com
Cc: mmorrow@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, tom.nadeau@bt.com,
neil.2.harrison@bt.com
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02
Message-Id: <20080207154301.972343A78A5@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:43:01 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=idsubmission@ietf.org; dkim=neutral
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-02.txt has been successfuly submitted by Stewart Bryant and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport
Revision: 02
Title: Application of Ethernet Pseudowires to MPLS Transport Networks
Creation_date: 2008-02-08
WG ID: pwe3
Number_of_pages: 13
Abstract:
A requirement has been identified by the operator community for the
transparent carriage of the MPLS network of one party over the MPLS
network of another party. This document describes an IETF-
recommended method of satisfying this need using the existing RFC4448
PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire standard.
The IETF Secretariat.
--------------010202020601080409000006
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--------------010202020601080409000006--
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 9 02:38:10 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE4F28C93D;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id tTAlhAGidZHA; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3417F28C92A;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACC228C928;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id s6wInOUhaGoC; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBED28C944;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138])
by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2008 11:39:09 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m19Ad8W4029198;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:39:08 +0100
Received: from stewart-bryants-computer.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp110.cisco.com
[10.61.64.110])
by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m19AcYaR022172;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:38:35 GMT
Message-ID: <47AD82AA.7080600@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:38:34 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsbsg15@itu.int, Malcolm Betts , Greg.Jones@itu.int
References: <47A9D804.20300@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47A9D804.20300@cisco.com>
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: "George Swallow \(swallow\)" , mpls@ietf.org,
pwe3 , statements@ietf.org,
yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp, sob@harvard.edurcallon,
Danny McPherson , David Ward ,
Mark Townsley , Stewart Bryant
Subject: [PWE3] IETF PWE3 WG Response to Addition of ATM and PDH clients to
T-MPLS
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
To:
tsbsg15@itu.int
betts01@nortel.com
greg.jones@itu.int
CC:
sob@harvard.edurcallon
dward@cisco.com
rcallon@juniper.net
mpls@lists.ietf.org
jari.arkko@piuha.net
townsley@cisco.com
mankin@psg.com
matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
pwe3@ietf.org
yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp
sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com
swallow@cisco.com
loa@pi.se
danny@arbor.net
stbryant@cisco.com
statements@ietf.org
For Action by ITU-T SG15 Question 12
IETF PWE3 WG Response to Addition of ATM and PDH clients to T-MPLS
Thank you for your liaison of 9th January 2008 entitled
"Addition of ATM and PDH clients to T-MPLS"
We found this short description of the packet processing more
difficult to read than the descriptions found in either
the relevant RFCs or the corresponding Y series recommendations
as such we found it difficult to review. Rather than defining
the operations in semi-detail we would prefer that you simply
indicate the primary references and modes that you propose to
support and refer the reader there for the description. This
prevents any issue of conflicting definitions. In any case
there needs to be a clear indication that this is a subset
of existing IETF PWE3 and SG13 recommendations
and that their packet processing definitions are authoritative.
We are concerned that you only propose to use the structure
agnostic TDM mode. This mode has limitations which are
addressed by the structure aware modes jointly developed
in the IETF PWE3 Working Group and ITU-T SG13.
Please can we suggest that you add text explaining that the
structure-agnostic mode is not always the idea method of TDM
emulation and preferably include text describing the use of
the structure aware modes as described in Y.1413, RFC 5086
and RFC 5087.
In the case of ATM, please can you be more specific about
the exact type of PW that you intend to support. The
confusion arises as a result of the text at the end of
section 7.1.4 of the document which says:
" For the case of Mode 1
* Cell de-multiplexing according to the VPI value, including
unmatched VPI cell discard
* Remove the VPI field"
Since MODE 1 is defined as the N-to-One cell mode of
[IETF RFC 4717], this this text appears to be in error, and
we believe that you should call up Mode 2.
There are some other items that are unclear in this section.
The paper discusses N-1 mode but then discusses multiple VP.
Is the mode that you wish to use what we call cell relay
mode PW type 0x0003 ?
Regards
Stewart Bryant
Danny McPherson
IETF PWE3 WG Co-chairs
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 9 08:21:51 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97FB28C9B8;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:21:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id e4ymeG1mdi-I; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DFE28C9AA;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEFA28C98A
for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:18:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id VOEYilricL5B for ;
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB0F28C986
for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 84ECA268495; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:19:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (VDSL-151-118-159-223.DNVR.QWEST.NET
[151.118.159.223]) (authenticated-user smtp)
(TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP;
for pwe3@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:19:57 -0700 (MST)
(envelope-from danny@arbor.net)
X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=151.118.159.223;
client-port=51823; syn-fingerprint=65535:56:1:64:M1316,N,W0,N,N,T,S;
data-bytes=0
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
References: <20080209092802.7A45028C8E6@core3.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <8CD59DF0-E524-4FAF-A3BF-C4ED685691D8@arbor.net>
From: Danny McPherson
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:19:42 -0700
To: pwe3
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:21:07 -0800
Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: PWE3 - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 71
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Thanks Matthew!
Folks, *tentative* agenda slot for PWE3 in Philly is Thursday
afternoon, 1300-1500.
-danny
Begin forwarded message:
> From: IETF Secretariat
> Date: February 9, 2008 2:28:02 AM MST
> To: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
> Cc:
> stbryant@cisco.com,danny@arbor.net,jari.arkko@piuha.net,townsley@cisco
> .com,session-request@ietf.org
> Subject: PWE3 - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 71
>
> Dear Matthew Bocci,
>
> The sessions that you have requested have been scheduled.
> Below is the scheduled session information followed by
> the information of sessions that you have requested.
>
> PWE3 Session 1 (2 hours)
> Thursday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500
> Room Name: Breakout Room
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Requested Information:
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Working Group Name: pwe3
> Area Name: Internet Area
> Session Requester: Matthew Bocci
>
> Number of Sessions: 1
> Length of Session(s): 2 hours
>
>
> Number of Attendees: 150
> Conflicts to Avoid:
> First Priority: ancp l2vpn l3vpn ccamp mpls intarea ipfix
> rtgarea ntp opsec
>
> Special Requests:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 03:16:39 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFE73A6B27;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-3.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id r9lfn4Rtpg-h; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891733A6B15;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365503A6B15;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id CF+vqm0bl-kD; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE893A6B13;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21])
by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2008 03:18:02 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237])
by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1BBI1VY016994;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:18:01 -0800
Received: from stewart-bryants-computer.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp728.cisco.com
[10.61.66.216])
by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1BBHc61021341;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:17:38 GMT
Message-ID: <47B02ED1.8070801@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:17:37 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsbsg15@itu.int, Ghani.Abbas@ericsson.com
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: "George Swallow \(swallow\)" , mpls@ietf.org,
pwe3 , statements@ietf.org,
"Scott O. Bradner" , yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp,
Danny McPherson , David Ward ,
Mark Townsley , Deborah Brungard ,
Stewart Bryant
Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 response to ITU-T SG15Q9 Liaison on TMPLS Ring
Protection
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
To:
tsbsg15@itu.int
ghani.abbas@ericsson.com
CC:
swallow@cisco.com
loa@pi.se
adrian@olddog.co.uk
dbrungard@att.com
danny@arbor.net
stbryant@cisco.com
sob@harvard.ed
rcallon@juniper.net
dward@cisco.com
mpls@lists.ietf.org
jari.arkko@piuha.net
townsley@cisco.com
mankin@psg.com
matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
pwe3@ietf.org
yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp
sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com
ghani.abbas@ericsson.com
statements@ietf.org
To SG15 Q9 For comment
Thank you for your liaison on TMPLS Ring Protection
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/386/
The mechanism proposed in this document is a new type of
MPLS packet forwarding technology and as such comes under
the purview of the MPLS Change Process (RFC 4929). It
should therefore be pursued through the IETF Standards
Process.
This is a new specialist repair mechanism proposed for
a specialist topology. It is clear that the problem could also
be solved by the widely deployed repair mechanism based on
nested MPLS encapsulation (so called MPLS-TE fast reroute).
Please could you point us to information explaining the
reasons why this additional mechanism is required.
It is our understanding that ring protection requires signaling
between the two sides of the failure before the repair can
start and that this would seem to be therefore slower than the
already deployed mechanism that allows the repairing system
to autonomously invoke the repair.
We are concerned that unlike existing MPLS fast re-route
mechanisms it appears that it is not possible to test
the repair path without causing disruption to the
operation of the ring.
We are concerned that this mechanism will require two labels
for every T-MPLS path through the network and hence does not
scale as well as an encapsulation based protection.
In Section 7 Para 5 the document says:
"Hold-off time: to avoid protection switching cascade in
different network layers when a lower layer network protection
mechanism is activated in conjunction with the T-MPLS
layer protection scheme. Usage of hold-off timers allows
the lower layer to restore working traffic before the T-MPLS
layer initiates a protection action. "
Please could you explain how a ring "knows" its current level
in the hierarchy in order to set the hold-off timer correctly
and what impact this has on the 50ms requirement?
In Section 7 para 8 the document says:
"a) The switching protocol shall be able to accommodate as
a minimum up to 127 nodes on a ring. "
It might be better to express this in terms of a reminder that
the maximum number of hops that a T-MPLS packet can traverse
end to end - including any backtracking needed for repair is 255.
In Section 18 Label assignment the document says
"In the T-MPLS Shared Protection Ring no restrictions are
applied to the labels allocation along the normal and
protection connections (besides T-MPLS per platform and per
interface label space requirements as described in appendix
III/G.8110.1). However, at every node there must be a deterministic
relation between the labels assigned for normal and protection
connection in both West and East directions. "
Please confirm that you mean that it must be possible to associate
the normal protection labels, but that the label values may
be independently assigned using local policy in the ring
nodes.
Regards
Stewart Bryant
IETF PWE3 WG Co-chair
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 11:05:50 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C8D3A6DB0;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.981
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.544, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id kgWOSQQJxW05; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49DC3A6CEA;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401923A6D62
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 65xfO8PfMzjV for ;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fw.testbed.se (smtp.testbed.se [80.86.78.228])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842413A6D91
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from ) id 1JOdzX-0001kd-Rq
for pwe3@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06:59 +0100
Received: from h4n2fls31o874.telia.com ([213.66.236.4]:62667
helo=[192.168.0.100])
by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from )
id 1JOdzW-0001kQ-Cf; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06:58 +0100
Message-ID: <47B09CCA.9080100@pi.se>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06:50 +0100
From: Loa Andersson
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: t-mpls-dt@testbed.se
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Cc: IAB , mpls@ietf.org, pwe3
Subject: [PWE3] The IAB Technical Ad Hoc Team on T-MPLS has been closed down
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
To: The IAB Technical Ad Hoc Group on T-MPLS
Cc: mpls working group, pwe3 working group
Thanks for all the good work and all the hours (that turned
out to be much more than what we anticipated) that you all
have put into the IAB Technical Ad Hoc Group on T-MPLS.
The efforts and diligence of the Ad Hoc group are responsible
for our success in promoting MPLS technology as an important
part of the IETF standards.
Today the ITU-T Ad Hoc Group on T-MPLS was announced in Geneva,
and so was the Joint Working Team. This will be followed shortly
by an Internet and Routing Area AD sponsored IETF design team.
The IAB judges that the Ad hoc team has successfully completed
all the tasks is was chartered for and judges that the effort
can now conclude.
On behalf of the IAB
Loa Andersson
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se
loa@pi.se
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 14:02:42 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB59C28C3FD;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id s-mhjy5Jf2lk; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D523A6CCD;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16EE3A6C69
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id N3IWn0Nhlt3c for ;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from audl751.usa.alcatel.com (audl751.usa.alcatel.com
[143.209.238.164])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425573A6C12
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs01.usa.alcatel.com
[172.22.216.19])
by audl751.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id m1BM438c009909;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:04:03 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.7]) by
usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:04:02 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.10]) by
USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:59 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:58 -0600
Message-ID: <1988E9AEADBA934C8DDB90BAF9DA2E2F5BB6DC@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <8105702B00445044A4482E17F37D6B1210A222E4@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: New version of: draft-dolganow-pwe3-ospf-ms-pw-ext
Thread-Index: AchnRyXwrziKS2VDSM+sFQ+LKyS0XwFcpXsgABAKnZA=
References: <8105702B00445044A4482E17F37D6B1210A222E4@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
From: "DOLGANOW Andrew"
To: "pwe3"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2008 22:03:59.0867 (UTC)
FILETIME=[01403CB0:01C86CFA]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34
Cc: stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: [PWE3] New version of: draft-dolganow-pwe3-ospf-ms-pw-ext
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
All,
The new version of the draft is available
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-dolganow-pwe3-ospf-ms-pw
-ext-02.txt). The changes address points raised in Vancouver that needed
extra text (mainly around protecting IGP) so this document can become a
WG document as requested during the last meeting. We would like to ask
that the new version becomes a WG document.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
From pwe3-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 09:52:39 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2916928CCCF;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id iZhE6dm5ugqW; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC6228C310;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B2D28C310
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Da2YSiqV0e9t for ;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from audl951.usa.alcatel.com (audl951.usa.alcatel.com
[143.209.238.161])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC16028C230
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs02.usa.alcatel.com
[172.22.216.13])
by audl951.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id m1CHrXmm023485;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:53:42 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.6]) by
usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:53:40 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.11]) by
USDALSMBS01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:53:40 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:53:39 -0600
Message-ID: <1988E9AEADBA934C8DDB90BAF9DA2E2F60B98D@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1988E9AEADBA934C8DDB90BAF9DA2E2F5BB6DC@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Call to make draft-dolganow-pwe3-ospf-ms-pw-ext a PWE3 WG
document
thread-index: AchnRyXwrziKS2VDSM+sFQ+LKyS0XwFcpXsgABAKnZAAKXNIcA==
References: <8105702B00445044A4482E17F37D6B1210A222E4@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
<1988E9AEADBA934C8DDB90BAF9DA2E2F5BB6DC@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
From: "DOLGANOW Andrew"
To: "pwe3"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2008 17:53:40.0547 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3373A130:01C86DA0]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34
Subject: [PWE3] Call to make draft-dolganow-pwe3-ospf-ms-pw-ext a PWE3 WG
document
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge
List-Unsubscribe: