Re: LMP revision 04

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Bert,

Can we also add which LMP functions too, as Bala suggested? This is where the
arguments come.


Kireeti,

FYI only, (which means I have no intention to argue for it) and just my
understanding from LMP related emails (I happened to read and understand some of
them), fault management in LMP is technology specific. Control channel
management is suspicious. At least some argue that it is not necessary for some
technologies, and meanwhile overlap with some other solutions (better/complete
but not invented here).

BTW, is fault management in CCAMP charter?

Thanks,

Yangguang

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> > <chair hat>
> > Nevertheless, this may be of interest.  If an AD would volunteer,
> > perhaps folks can send him a *short* message stating:
> >
> > Type: vendor/carrier
> > Company: (to weed out duplicates)
> > Interest level in LMP:
> >       For vendors:  opposed/yawn/interested/implementing/released
> >       For carriers: useless/yawn/useful/testing/deploying/deployed
> I would add:
>   used with technology: ethernet/sonet/sdh/atm/fr/xx
> 
> >
> > and the AD can post a tally of the responses?
> > </chair hat>
> >
> This AD volunteers for that.
> 
> Bert