RE: J0/J1 encoding issues

["Bernstein, Greg" <GregB@ciena.com>]

Hi Bala, the proposed encoding in the current G.7714.1 took into account:
(1)The old OIF contributions
(2)The need for different formats assuming different control plane address
types
(3)A bit closer reading of the ITU specs.

What it didn't include was the "cross layer" discovery concept that was in
the older OIF contributions.  This material is somewhat subsummed in the
"test signal" method for discovery.

Greg B.

-----------------------
New e-mail as of December 2nd: gregb@grotto-networking.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:32 AM
To: Bernstein, Greg; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO';
jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com; ccamp
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues



Hi,

My question though is w.r.t the encoding carried
in J0. There was a specific T.50 based encoding
proposed in OIF a while ago. Now, there is a different
encoding specified in G.7714. Which one of these
should be followed and why?

Regards,

Bala 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernstein, Greg [mailto:GregB@ciena.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:56 AM
To: 'Bala Rajagopalan'; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO';
jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com; ccamp
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues


Hi Bala if you really dig hard through the ITU-T specs you'll see that the
use of Jx traces is for "connectivity supervision".  Both understanding
where a particular signal came from and keeping an eye on it to make sure it
hasn't changed, i.e., a misconnection.

Hence, the intent is very similar to discovery but the content was not
standardized.  By staying within the general guidelines contained in G.707
(the SDH specification) then existing as well as new equipment can take
advantage of this functionality.  For example with a legacy ADM I could set
and receive these J0 strings via TL1 commands then run the rest of my
optical control plane "off the box".

Greg B.

----------------------------------------------------------
New E-mail as of December 2nd: gregb@grotto-networking.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:38 AM
To: 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO'; jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com; ccamp
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues



It is not clear reading any of the docs
(including G.7714) what the actual practice is
currently w.r.t J0 usage. Also, it's not
clear how discovery, a new capability, relates
to existing equipment, i.e., is it possible
to implement this feature in legacy equipment that 
reads J0 in specific ways? Or, are we talking
essentially about next generation equipment
in which case we may have some lattitude on how
to interpret J0? Some clarification on this
would be appreciated.

Bala


-----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:23 AM
To: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com; ccamp
Subject: RE: J0/J1 encoding issues


As Jonathan says, the current G.707 is using T.50. And there's more.
Example, for J0, one currently needs to support:
- previously defined C1 (repeating one-byte)
- T.50 (with format of G.707)
- no J0 (for equipment not supporting).

So already we have defined multiple applications for this byte. Not to say,
there will be not any new ones. Even ITU knows, it never is final;-)

For supporting LMP's use, we need to understand the scenarios of use (sounds
familiar to T1X1.5 participants?) e.g. intra-operator, inter-operator,
applied for equipment installation verification or service connection
verification, etc. And hardware implications.

Actually, G.831 defines multiple uses depending if inter or intra -
including for intra-operator, support of routing/path set-up (and G.831 was
done years ago).

Suggest, for timing, as a T1X1.5 meeting is dec 4-dec 5, contribute the
proposal for the meeting and we can start the discussion. The next ITU-T
meeting is in January. If the LMP editors need help on our T1X1.5 process,
just ask.

Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:59 PM
To: ccamp
Subject: J0/J1 encoding issues


All -

As mentioned at the CCAMP meeting, the SDH trace bytes (J0/J1/J2)
have restrictions not only on the length of a trace message and on
the bits usable in a octet, but also on whether the payload in the
message uses printable ASCII characters.

The requirements for J0/J1/J2 (found in G.707) state the trace
message payload must utilize the printable characters defined in
T.50.  Two current LMP drafts (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh &
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap) utilize encodings that are not
consistant with this requirement.

This message is being sent to document this issue.  It is not a
statement that no other issues exist -- I expect that the appropriate
experts in the ITU will review the rest of these two drafts and
provide appropriate comment.

Jonathan Sadler
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged 
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================