+1.

I would like to see an Applicability section in the "long draft"= ; that would list pros and cons of each method.

My 2c,

Sasha

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounces@iet= f.org] on behalf of David Allan I [david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:24 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

I agree, I've never been happy with the original document, and= there is enough updated material that a revision IMO is in order.

cheers

Dave

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:= pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

Yaakov,

let me re-phrase.

I'm for the long draft that documen= ts all of VCCVs.

&nb= sp; Regards,

&nb= sp; Greg

From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@= rad.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: VCCV2

Greg

Thanks for the opinion= on content.

But for the meantime I= was asking a question about document format.

Y(J)S

From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.co= m]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 21:17
To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: VCCV2

Dear Yaakov, Tom, et al.,

I'd support RFC 5085bis rather than formal obsole= cence of PW VCCV Control Channel Type 2 and introduction of new Type 4.

Regards,

Greg

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.= org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:24 AM
To: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: [PWE3] VCCV2

Hi all

I would like to bring to th= e list the questions Tom and I raised yesterday.

= 1)&nb= sp; Should we do a short (and quick turnaround) draft just on the CC type= s (obsoleting type 2 and introducing type 4) ?

= 2)&nb= sp; If so, should we merge VCCV2 with VCCV-2 ?

The alternative is a long d= raft that documents all of VCCV.

Y(J)S

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains infor= mation which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If= you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, p= hone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

--_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020C3C0EFRIDWPPMB002ecite_-- From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Wed Aug 1 12:45:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6EB11E80F2 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:45:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UyxrzH-YyuWe for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com [85.158.143.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9739C11E80A3 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.143.35:52916] by server-2.bemta-4.messagelabs.com id 0D/3F-17938-96789105; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:45:45 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1343850345!16384777!1 X-Originating-IP: [168.87.1.157] X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.2; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 7686 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2012 19:45:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com) (168.87.1.157) by server-15.tower-21.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2012 19:45:45 -0000 X-AuditID: a8571406-b7f176d000000aff-6b-5019877757e5 Received: from FRIDWPPCH002.ecitele.com (Unknown_Domain [10.1.16.53]) by fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E3.B3.02815.77789105; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:45:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FRIDWPPMB002.ecitele.com ([169.254.4.204]) by FRIDWPPCH002.ecitele.com ([10.1.16.53]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:45:44 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Yaakov Stein Thread-Topic: PWE3 congestion considerations draft Thread-Index: Ac1wC0Lk12U8pzIEQfqeRMaM7W8oDwAEjwDq Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:45:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C6C6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C6C6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.234.1.2] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020C3C18FRIDWPPMB002ecite_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA3VTWUzUUBTltaUUpKYO48ybkYRaJn6og4MrGgb1Q+MSIxGMiT9ap4+Z6kyn thUBE4MRNaISnIALRkQzKsE1uCcukbgOMeISt4hxISYuicTEKB+Cr1SQH//OO+fec0/77mNI 2w/azciKgTRFDAt0GpUGktze9dtchb6+x6Pyar6fp/K6q38lzyLmxeM9xLzYqZJCYnklyBcV JWqIBuIlpAf8QqEml4qBcoGXJb+QK/BqWAygCFIMvyCqKlIkoSAtH5OywiMlEJVkJegX5hct 9ublTZnuzRUKikOyziNvRJTDfATpuhhEPGbMaIqEJL4kqvFGCPEaCsiqjFbuIkM1x+to9fDo sr7bnVQliGVWA4aB3GTY+3p0NUjF0AE73pyhq0EaY+MSAG6pvwKsQxzAgz9u0GYVzflh64nO fmznsuHX7b3JJia5sbD9QX0/n8Hlws1Ve0mrZiI8cK2dHsA91w+Q5mCK88CuzskmZLlFMNYx zaywcQvgqc7WfsdUbiG8takKmBjgbD8TJwlrkhO+6jpEWJk5GL/6kLTwSPjpg5UGclnw3IUP f5NF4e2GlykmZrkR8P7+LsqqccGbzS+oWuBoGGLbMKSlYUiLxefAF/V1tIXHwWOHv5AW9sJ9 vW3UUL4JpLQAWKLJUlgt1Vf5fFNy8FUYKIxyAtFIK8C707zMTl8GlbU5bYBjgJDOgjJXoS1Z LNXLI23AxRDCSDa2EVPDV0Wl8pCoh1Zo68JIbwOQIQU7+2UD1lhJLK9AWnRAmoN/7W7SPSwQ NVfBWDHJ5/v/QXCyZ5YULLZxQbyaaxBSkTbgk8kwAmTbt+IRIzQURGUlctj4JxNMqhkjHcfY adawuipGdDlo6QngcjvZs6bAmUJonTLY+xk48cdmsHdMNR0v7GDXZ2xIYMPiWQ7TED+XQcld CSZsmZs0tyLL8fru0otzyOaEfYZ7f6Nnh+HJPk1+419Wrd351DPsXYI4kvRwdXx+zfjftfb2 HuP70aI9TY+eZE+948ncfSzlQve1jEvLn9/TThSxzivPbC2Bt0eM2Ps9+aHMno6JH7McfXXd C1pXU88a1TH3P1Z8mnm9a+3s3lEtxXsbBUoPibljSU0X/wC3XPc5CAQAAA== Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 congestion considerations draft X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:45:49 -0000 --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020C3C18FRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Yaakov and all, I've read the draft, and it looks OK to me. It explains - at last - while co= ngestion is not a real issue with PWs - something that most of us have proba= bly known for as long as the term PW has been coined, but failed to present= this point clearly and convincingly. Understanding that a PW is NOT, congestion-wise, similar to a single TCP or= UDP flow closes an old outstanding gap. I support adoption of this draft as a WG item. My 2c, Sasha ________________________________ From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Yaakov Stei= n [yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:29 PM To: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 congestion considerations draft Hi all This is an email to solicit comments on http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stei= n-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf . The authors would like this to become a WG draft, to fulfill our long-standi= ng commitment to treat PWE congestion issues. Y(J)S This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020C3C18FRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Yaakov and all,

I've read the draft, and it looks OK to me. It explains - at last - while= congestion is not a real issue with PWs - something that most of us have pr= obably known for as long as the term PW has been coined, but failed to prese= nt this point clearly and convincingly.

Understanding that a PW is NOT, congestion-wise, similar to a single TCP= or UDP flow closes an old outstanding gap.

I support adoption of this draft as a WG item.

My 2c,

Sasha

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounces@ie= tf.org] on behalf of Yaakov Stein [yaakov_s@rad.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:29 PM
To: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 congestion considerations draft

Hi all

This is an email to solicit comments on http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf .

The authors would like this to become a WG draft, to= fulfill our long-standing commitment to treat PWE congestion issues.

Y(J)S

--_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020C3C18FRIDWPPMB002ecite_-- From mach.chen@huawei.com Wed Aug 1 13:52:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4860C11E82CC for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKlmufUCdI81 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F49811E82CA for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIP50706; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:51:23 -0700 Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:51:27 -0700 Received: from SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.86]) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 04:50:10 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: David Allan I , Gregory Mirsky , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)" Thread-Topic: VCCV2 Thread-Index: Ac1wCmL5ehLaaQv+TH2ez80Jt0Yk9wABVMjwAACTS1AAABFWUAAAIQJQAAUM3lI= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:50:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C68D@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C813@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> , <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5667D23392@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5667D23392@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.24.1.68] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CA335DFSZXEML511MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:52:35 -0000 --_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CA335DFSZXEML511MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 Best regards, Mach ________________________________ From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of David Alla= n I [david.i.allan@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:24 To: Gregory Mirsky; Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 I agree, I've never been happy with the original document, and there is eno= ugh updated material that a revision IMO is in order. cheers Dave ________________________________ From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gre= gory Mirsky Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:22 AM To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 Yaakov, let me re-phrase. I'm for the long draft that documents all of VCCVs. Regards, Greg ________________________________ From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:19 AM To: Gregory Mirsky; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: RE: VCCV2 Greg Thanks for the opinion on content. But for the meantime I was asking a question about document format. Y(J)S From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 21:17 To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: RE: VCCV2 Dear Yaakov, Tom, et al., I'd support RFC 5085bis rather than formal obsolecence of PW VCCV Control C= hannel Type 2 and introduction of new Type 4. Regards, Greg ________________________________ From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaa= kov Stein Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:24 AM To: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org) Subject: [PWE3] VCCV2 Hi all I would like to bring to the list the questions Tom and I raised yesterday. 1) Should we do a short (and quick turnaround) draft just on the CC ty= pes (obsoleting type 2 and introducing type 4) ? 2) If so, should we merge VCCV2 with VCCV-2 ? The alternative is a long draft that documents all of VCCV. Y(J)S --_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CA335DFSZXEML511MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Best regards,

Mach

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounce= s@ietf.org] on behalf of David Allan I [david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:24
To: Gregory Mirsky; Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

I agree, I've never been happy with the original document, a= nd there is enough updated material that a revision IMO is in order.=

cheers

Dave

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto= :pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

Yaakov,

let me re-phrase.

I'm for the long draft that docum= ents all of VCCVs.

&n= bsp; Regards,

&n= bsp; Greg

From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s= @rad.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: VCCV2

Greg

Thanks for the opinion= on content.

But for the meantime I= was asking a question about document format.

Y(J)S

From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com= ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 21:17
To: Yaakov Stein; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: VCCV2

Dear Yaakov, Tom, et al.,

I'd support RFC 5085bis rather than formal obsolec= ence of PW VCCV Control Channel Type 2 and introduction of new Type 4.

Regards, Greg

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.o= rg [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:24 AM
To: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
Subject: [PWE3] VCCV2

Hi all

I would like to bring to th= e list the questions Tom and I raised yesterday.

1= ) = ; Should we do a short (and quick turnaround) draft just on the CC typ= es (obsoleting type 2 and introducing type 4) ?

2= ) = ; If so, should we merge VCCV2 with VCCV-2 ?

The alternative is a long d= raft that documents all of VCCV.

Y(J)S

--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CA335DFSZXEML511MBSchi_-- From lmartini@cisco.com Wed Aug 1 16:46:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14A711E8110 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:46:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yo2Ny35QG2c0 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from napoleon.monoski.com (napoleon.monoski.com [70.90.113.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129A211E809A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seven.monoski.com (dhcp-6259.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.98.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q71Ml3I0024052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <5019BFDB.1030702@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:46:35 -0700 From: Luca Martini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yaakov Stein References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C6C6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C6C6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040209010806080909030905" Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 congestion considerations draft X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:46:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040209010806080909030905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yaakov, Thank you for once again leading this work. As was requested of us more then 10 years ago , me must work on mitigating the congestion that PW might cause. I support adoption of this draft as a WG item. Luca On 08/01/2012 10:29 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Hi all > > This is an email to solicit comments on > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf . > > The authors would like this to become a WG draft, to fulfill our long-standing > commitment to treat PWE congestion issues. > > Y(J)S > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --------------040209010806080909030905 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yaakov,
Thank you for once again leading this work.

As was requested of us more then 10 years ago , me must work on mitigating the congestion that PW might cause.

I support adoption of this draft as a WG item.

Luca

On 08/01/2012 10:29 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:

Hi all

This is an email to solicit comments on 
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf .

The authors would like this to become a WG draft, to fulfill our long-standing 
commitment to treat PWE congestion issues.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--------------040209010806080909030905-- From amalis@gmail.com Thu Aug 2 13:58:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB9611E8143 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JM5QlO+FM+TQ for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C6211E8140 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so9979662yen.31 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=TAFOErXFz28S5EfGKzBFj59zLcF6QQqVoQrZNQPCy5A=; b=a4tLGnhttI81pBWN21wz+ub/398bfbyyKsgeclo0WoavFq5KfusctiwtRq1rgnUE1B ia8SjZKrneP1EQEf8N7eyMOmL6KeZhhNZuebcqtc9XtyMrATb/Nd2p0OPlBKNkMa8ayR RW9PS5KPwOqilxNNLvP8+NW6bR2KbndSh5ySfSDQaj2Iegt3RN0ptTTyD9Kv6Fnf+511 AH/Rl+YQBOeMtsf1Z6E5xQI31lqV37wzVvPILE6YNxEaXf/x1DlWHluXTDb5RG5w/Bpm gMuI7D+JhMHeqMDOKSZx0fyxG1BsTKVB0augAy37T09EuE+5M/GydMIjPXUbmtVLZYwt Xw3A== Received: by 10.60.2.99 with SMTP id 3mr39922263oet.20.1343941087076; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.34.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:57:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:57:46 -0700 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 minutes are now online X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:58:09 -0000 PWE3ers, Please read the minutes at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-pwe3 and respond if you have any comments or corrections. Thanks to Scott Mansfield for scribing. ALSO - we didn't get to the overflow drafts. We plan to ask for a longer slot for the Atlanta IETF. However, if you're free at 15:10 today (Thursday), one of those drafts, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interruption, will be discussed in the opsawg meeting (Georgia B). You are encouraged to attend. Cheers, Andy From amalis@gmail.com Fri Aug 3 09:14:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C4321F8E3C for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwGKRtCr4NXb for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7ECB21F8E2E for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenm6 with SMTP id m6so692743yen.31 for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=7fuK9avcigmDodP6Shfu6Gy1Imxj/9aE0TQs0ZxCykg=; b=J9OvbB+4i7xb2kUa2xAyz2fwfOkFfaTfK5N5exTq9VAvoZ0B1ur1iEgPj/l4II2T2I MYTKnD3JliKTZkmRxB4i2faDBNmvEYu7lkDUidN3y+21rf7NxCziQYXcYs1UC0jXqPUG GUhCPdHi2yxXBP68vXgjqkkj6/p3C2gVePRaYoCXkb63JRGbqD/2TTPdcInRpmS0I0CK Sop+UOOzJNKvi7MmwNjG2eHW57vkjJ0QeKICnXr1bAtOjNXviy5bmDxi22RA+xmj6Ogh NhYY+C0u3w4zv6b0m/ePI3YVYqgUsJdN7mbuaZK46yCJJXymnfNxKcm+jhYDakk71Iyw xlLw== Received: by 10.60.172.101 with SMTP id bb5mr5958713oec.44.1344010493672; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.34.193 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:14:33 -0700 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:14:58 -0000 Given the support shown both in this week's meeting and on the list, and that this has been a long-standing item on the PWE3 WG charter, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf as a working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the WG. If you've already shown support on the list for the draft, that support has been noted and does not need to be repeated. (Note that we refer to the pdf version of this draft rather than the text version, as the pdf version contains non-ASCII figures that are not visible in the text version.) Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 17 August. Thanks, Andy and Matthew From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Aug 4 16:04:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A8D21F86B9 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:04:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y9rmy-owJdef for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29EC21F86B6 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q74N4CsR019257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:04:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q74N4BL0031522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:34:12 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:34:11 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:34:08 +0530 Thread-Topic: PW Communities draft Thread-Index: Ac1ylXQnUI/GXiBcQ0CymTWRNZ3ikg== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F2218554INBANSXCHMBSA_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Cc: "Kwok, Paul \(Paul\)" Subject: [PWE3] PW Communities draft X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:04:17 -0000 --_000_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F2218554INBANSXCHMBSA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, We had presented the 00-version of the "PW Communities" draft in = IETF-81@Quebec City. Based on the feedbacks/comments received in the mailin= g list we had provided an update in IETF-82@Taipei. The latest version can = be found below. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Please provide your comments in the current version. We would lik= e to request for WG adoption of the draft. PW Communities provide a generic and extendable building block ba= sed on which any complex set of policies/filtering rules can be applied dur= ing PW set-up with minimal overhead. The intention of the proposed techniqu= e is to aid in policy administration, especially during MS-PW set-up across= various S-PEs. Thanks, Pranjal --_000_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F2218554INBANSXCHMBSA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All,

W= e had presented the 00-version of the “PW Communities” draft in IETF-81@Quebec City. Based on the feedbacks/comments received in the mailin= g list we had provided an update in IETF-82@Taipei. The latest version can be found below.

http= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03

Please provide your comments in the current version. We would like to reque= st for WG adoption of the draft.

          PW Communit=
ies provide a generic and extendable building block based on which any comp=
lex set of policies/filtering rules can be applied during PW set-up with mi=
nimal overhead. The intention of the proposed technique is to aid in policy=
 administration, especially during MS-PW set-up across various S-PEs. =

Th=
anks,

Pr=
anjal

--_000_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F2218554INBANSXCHMBSA_-- From david.black@emc.com Sun Aug 5 11:27:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A7021F84FD for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:27:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AXXPYLYezCcD for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C2021F84EA for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q75IRhk7028794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:27:44 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:27:25 -0400 Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q75IRPHS008084; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:27:25 -0400 Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.189]) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.105]) with mapi; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:27:25 -0400 From: To: , Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:27:24 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf Thread-Index: Ac1xkyaW9LRWAOP6S4GhruttmUOTkgAyomeg Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71208E80252@MX15A.corp.emc.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:27:48 -0000 As I indicated in the Vancouver meeting, I strongly support pwe3 WG adoptio= n of this draft (which should not come as a surprise, since I'm a co-author). I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= ndrew > G. Malis > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 12:15 PM > To: pwe3@ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congco= ns- > 01.pdf >=20 > Given the support shown both in this week's meeting and on the list, > and that this has been a long-standing item on the PWE3 WG charter, > the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of > https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf as a > working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you > support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are > helpful for the WG. If you've already shown support on the list for > the draft, that support has been noted and does not need to be > repeated. >=20 > (Note that we refer to the pdf version of this draft rather than the > text version, as the pdf version contains non-ASCII figures that are > not visible in the text version.) >=20 > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for > more details). >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The > draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each > author and contributor. >=20 > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF > rules. >=20 > This will be a two-week poll, ending 17 August. >=20 > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From davari@broadcom.com Sun Aug 5 13:48:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE4221F8582 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.404, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YA8DiH3daCLD for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms3.broadcom.com (mms3.broadcom.com [216.31.210.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE7321F8568 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.192.232] by mms3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:46:34 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: B86B6450-0931-4310-942E-F00ED04CA7AF Received: from SJEXCHCAS01.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.192.31) by SJEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.192.232) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:48:13 -0700 Received: from SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [fe80::bc15:c1e1:c29a:36f7]) by sjexchcas01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:47:52 -0700 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "Andrew G. Malis" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf Thread-Index: AQHNcZMpa6hhdmMmLEmyN6yIwOVZPpdLtAI6 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:47:51 +0000 Message-ID: <211B66F8-14AB-404E-A79D-6E9A7EBE3B1E@broadcom.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 7C00042049816313253-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:48:38 -0000 Support. Regards, Shahram On Aug 3, 2012, at 9:15 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: > Given the support shown both in this week's meeting and on the list, > and that this has been a long-standing item on the PWE3 WG charter, > the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of > https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf as a > working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you > support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are > helpful for the WG. If you've already shown support on the list for > the draft, that support has been noted and does not need to be > repeated. >=20 > (Note that we refer to the pdf version of this draft rather than the > text version, as the pdf version contains non-ASCII figures that are > not visible in the text version.) >=20 > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for > more details). >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The > draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each > author and contributor. >=20 > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF > rules. >=20 > This will be a two-week poll, ending 17 August. >=20 > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >=20 From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Aug 5 20:50:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668E521F8487 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:50:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.909, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l6xvUeg0LWZr for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C370121F847F for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q763oqmn017032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 5 Aug 2012 22:50:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q763oowC021862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:20:51 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:20:50 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:20:48 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf Thread-Index: Ac1xkyVL1IuQnRRjTeSaDZVhDsN7zgB84AsQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 03:50:57 -0000 Support. Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:15 AM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-stein-pwe3-congcons= -01.pdf Given the support shown both in this week's meeting and on the list, and that this has been a long-standing item on the PWE3 WG charter, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-stein-pwe3-congcons-01.pdf as a working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the WG. If you've already shown support on the list for the draft, that support has been noted and does not need to be repeated. (Note that we refer to the pdf version of this draft rather than the text version, as the pdf version contains non-ASCII figures that are not visible in the text version.) Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 17 August. Thanks, Andy and Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Aug 6 09:39:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BA921E804E; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:39:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mpObyVJFz1tl; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8D921E804C; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120806163916.30597.74727.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:39:16 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Last Call: (MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:39:17 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3 architecture to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to Ethernet PW and AC defects. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1781/ From yshen@juniper.net Tue Aug 7 10:43:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CA621F8716 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:43:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ss5ejRq2MU49 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5410221F86C8 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCFTn68prx0xg7N+hrO5MTP3Imss2pav@postini.com; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:42:56 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:41:26 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:41:26 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:41:18 -0400 From: Yimin Shen To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:41:18 -0400 Thread-Topic: solicitation for comments - draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection Thread-Index: Ac10w9mbrw7PxkYfQdyi4FVsOI6ZGQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PWE3] solicitation for comments - draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:43:14 -0000 Hi PWE3'ers, We presented an update for the "PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection" draft = last week during IETF 84 in Vancouver. As suggested by the chairs, we'd lik= e to solicit more comments on it. Please read this draft, and let us know i= f you have any questions or comments. =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-02 Regards, -Yimin Shen Juniper Networks From gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl Tue Aug 14 04:19:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B5221F8680 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:19:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IdTDMX5r3LC4 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mika.eatserver.nl (mika.eatserver.nl [195.20.9.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC0821F867F for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.242.97.150] (qore.networks.above.net [195.242.97.150] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mika.eatserver.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7EBIu3D018498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:58 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localhost [127.0.0.1]) by router38.aimvalley.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBB4818303 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Endian Firewall X-Spam-CTCH-RefID: Received: from mail3.aimsys.nl (mail.aimsys.nl [10.10.0.114]) by router38.aimvalley.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518E2818302 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.7.15] (pc315.aimsys.nl [10.10.7.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail3.aimsys.nl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q7EBIsuc019366 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:55 +0200 Message-ID: <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:54 +0200 From: Gert Manhoudt Organization: AimValley B.V. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pwe3 References: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040400070207060306070407" Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:19:01 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040400070207060306070407 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080501000806080008040706" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080501000806080008040706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated=20 draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a=20 structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for=20 SDH/SONET client signals. The following changes have been made to the document: 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires=20 has been removed 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were = raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have=20 been made and nits have been addressed Regards, Gert. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl CC: peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com= A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop Revision: 01 Title: Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet Creation date: 2012-08-14 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 40 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-= tsop-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-t= sop-01 Abstract: This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP) mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format, suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network= (PSN). The key property of the TSoP method is that it transports the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal format, other than its bit rate. The TSoP transparency includes transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal. This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity, both in implementation and during operation. = =20 The IETF Secretariat --------------080501000806080008040706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signals. The following changes have been made to the document: 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has been removed 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have been made and nits have been addressed Regards, Gert.

-------- Original Message -------- =

Sub= ject:	New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Dat= e:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700
Fro= m:	internet-drafts@ietf.org
To:=	gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
CC:=	peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com

A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop
Revision:	 01
Title:		 Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet
Creation date:	 2012-08-14
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 40
URL:             http://www.ietf.o=
rg/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/=
doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra=
ft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rf=
cdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01

Abstract:
   This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP)
   mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or
   Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format,
   suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network
   (PSN).  The key property of the TSoP  method is that it transports
   the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no
   use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal
   format, other than its bit rate.  The TSoP transparency includes
   transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal.
   This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity,
   both in implementation and during operation.

                                                                         =
        =20


The IETF Secretariat

--------------080501000806080008040706-- --------------ms040400070207060306070407 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFaTCC BWUwggRNoAMCAQICAhFsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIHMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJOTDEWMBQGA1UE CBMNTm9vcmQgSG9sbGFuZDESMBAGA1UEBxMJSGlsdmVyc3VtMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5BaW1WYWxs ZXkgQi5WLjEcMBoGA1UECxMTU2VjdXJpdHkgRGVwYXJ0bWVudDE0MDIGA1UEAxMrQWltVmFs bGV5IFJvb3QgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgMjAwNzEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYV c2VjdXJpdHlAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMB4XDTExMDMxMDA4NDQzMFoXDTE0MDMxNDA4NDQzMFow gbgxCzAJBgNVBAYTAk5MMRYwFAYDVQQIEw1Ob29yZCBIb2xsYW5kMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlIaWx2 ZXJzdW0xFzAVBgNVBAoTDkFpbVZhbGxleSBCLlYuMRwwGgYDVQQLExNTZWN1cml0eSBEZXBh cnRtZW50MR8wHQYDVQQDFBZnbWFuaG91ZHRAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMSUwIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkB FhZnbWFuaG91ZHRAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAuw56tsNq+B1arLVy8Wl7yrM3CJ8bFO8vxcfMUnKIzT6nai5yJOzcJlqYmqQd8AexuvzC psiyZUaTz0WERQ3fcnWn4xpt8l8ae9N+vH2ym3o/ikNF7BxyXjlx+8ccSyVIpvI9Tc/bUYtV GckjKUD2webMys8IqHq6Jvjfotw6+wmTZN2tiYc88GV9F+wLdA3ZHr7EumwIxZcvzLLtGdH2 7h+DCMgDeSl1vXKtBkytcIM3Lbb5r9qtKDv0bCszDk0XYnhTRIXlNtrKHoe1OhQ3y2TuLDWX ccIs2oR9NbEEYwk1Jtn1d3Csz65TTrLXaSx4klV3to+0KPFtCsYOByKwiwIDAQABo4IBYTCC AV0wCQYDVR0TBAIwADAsBglghkgBhvhCAQ0EHxYdT3BlblNTTCBHZW5lcmF0ZWQgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUwHQYDVR0OBBYEFK/31dJRNdnlx5vxZsZf2knHSQ0HMIIBAQYDVR0jBIH5MIH2gBTb 3nb+Ge+TFaFjNRKfTCRzMuUmCaGB0qSBzzCBzDELMAkGA1UEBhMCTkwxFjAUBgNVBAgTDU5v b3JkIEhvbGxhbmQxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUhpbHZlcnN1bTEXMBUGA1UEChMOQWltVmFsbGV5IEIu Vi4xHDAaBgNVBAsTE1NlY3VyaXR5IERlcGFydG1lbnQxNDAyBgNVBAMTK0FpbVZhbGxleSBS b290IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IDIwMDcxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFXNlY3Vy aXR5QGFpbXZhbGxleS5ubIIJAL5BwL888j5TMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4IBAQB0f0bL8Ikx iELD3/7+/zuU5o0lLquoHFnu6sfut/P6jTQkF/yCl6vMKEosvcjbUtxqjM0SgugSF63hDMbf 1ruKhJvCADEkU2nJgJPQrPncVQVp64DZNAh/h951WsbYZK2vDMkRbz0312MiJzgwchtjqlbJ RZOAEBe4FYyHeliudFWSUXYAgCHFOPArBkxGbyvDFY3wYBBwX37HRJjCIK3ro1JTGRSCn1qr HHDLn/srUon/07Fmr6chFtptK9GLZJHwoMB3WduAAFVvjhbUMDP+w2GYkW9EzZNe8WhiUOQu 89WOdYj1I7IPlJ9xrFpnKkfyVGIpwaFFnfFYX8BjaJq3MYIEmjCCBJYCAQEwgdMwgcwxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAk5MMRYwFAYDVQQIEw1Ob29yZCBIb2xsYW5kMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlIaWx2ZXJzdW0x FzAVBgNVBAoTDkFpbVZhbGxleSBCLlYuMRwwGgYDVQQLExNTZWN1cml0eSBEZXBhcnRtZW50 MTQwMgYDVQQDEytBaW1WYWxsZXkgUm9vdCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAyMDA3 MSQwIgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhVzZWN1cml0eUBhaW12YWxsZXkubmwCAhFsMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCg ggKbMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgxNDEx MTg1NFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFAkyLCHqc5sDtKvrA9rjcW8+u0TIMGwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ DzFfMF0wCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEqMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0D AgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwgeQGCSsGAQQB gjcQBDGB1jCB0zCBzDELMAkGA1UEBhMCTkwxFjAUBgNVBAgTDU5vb3JkIEhvbGxhbmQxEjAQ BgNVBAcTCUhpbHZlcnN1bTEXMBUGA1UEChMOQWltVmFsbGV5IEIuVi4xHDAaBgNVBAsTE1Nl Y3VyaXR5IERlcGFydG1lbnQxNDAyBgNVBAMTK0FpbVZhbGxleSBSb290IENlcnRpZmljYXRp b24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IDIwMDcxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFXNlY3VyaXR5QGFpbXZhbGxleS5u bAICEWwwgeYGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHWoIHTMIHMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJOTDEWMBQGA1UECBMN Tm9vcmQgSG9sbGFuZDESMBAGA1UEBxMJSGlsdmVyc3VtMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5BaW1WYWxsZXkg Qi5WLjEcMBoGA1UECxMTU2VjdXJpdHkgRGVwYXJ0bWVudDE0MDIGA1UEAxMrQWltVmFsbGV5 IFJvb3QgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgMjAwNzEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVc2Vj dXJpdHlAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sAgIRbDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBwjYO7n0qxW8JKtsYG jdl4aJNluZTr8iplNBZIHF8YW2xoT+n/wo8CwhTjirVmV1/pAaCIT6HwC8uuQL35aBZvhuQD mVGWdD/94lvKnZaHoHQvt1Yt6x26lwLkCDL1HE0VvEmNXNqP/frb9/SXNFXHKMZf7QIcSNEu rjq4ezBJoWsPw/btTPA4/aaFPgQywFDC8W9wAbgSFIigH44HwwJkgDeNXYPdYFQ4nrhozAY2 G3qkfS1/i/tKF3qZ3wH97k/db/3qIKKLuMQNefPZnFeyYkn8W0b4AdWdJh7spn9nUIpIQYMa C95TItUOa7VkM3yJi/YJBvur0dMQwblLbVe2AAAAAAAA --------------ms040400070207060306070407-- From amalis@gmail.com Tue Aug 14 04:34:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B93821F86A7 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.471 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTAWMBl8qk6L for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE49921F86C4 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so508567obb.31 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+t+aMNtSaGRlDaBBW1E/6MJRlKmbpSx8X1OHIQRb9KQ=; b=RYUdfmQdi/milf+1jq8H+zQR6lGXjDcLjJrJqSmxTDY877ixs9hXZ1U8aQAVl5big3 kT2aOvF/K1Cj+wdnD2eLMMoztxBhdlOn5AJnMbk6fgL7G56sh0ILhIyO9YSiGdZWEvQJ 5sOtJkxv747VHdHPhkzfKxQEyb8wbEq5ocVl/0sBpZuCbm3CdvgEiPQCFfW0OIR/1oaS Io2/bBiPg6V/i+76teXaQTjDBaRdJeyroQ+66EtS9ps6XUICDibr6AqzcpaInNpsJ/j/ Zc6i4Fz26Czx/2fnsPl/mZ+N5aVidZyte83UcBj5XSjd2UvCkkivF10HkUYjW239Y5eN njJw== Received: by 10.182.152.97 with SMTP id ux1mr18088927obb.13.1344944084185; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:34:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> References: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:34:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462c0a61722e04c738328a Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:45 -0000 --f46d04462c0a61722e04c738328a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Gert, Thanks! All, As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a liaison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft. We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending it to SG15. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt wrote: > Hi, > > As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated > draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a > structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for > SDH/SONET client signals. > > The following changes have been made to the document: > 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has > been removed > 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were > raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 > 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have > been made and nits have been addressed > > Regards, > Gert. > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700 From: > internet-drafts@ietf.org To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl CC: > peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com > > A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop > Revision: 01 > Title: Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet > Creation date: 2012-08-14 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 40 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 > > Abstract: > This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP) > mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or > Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format, > suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network > (PSN). The key property of the TSoP method is that it transports > the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no > use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal > format, other than its bit rate. The TSoP transparency includes > transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal. > This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity, > both in implementation and during operation. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > --f46d04462c0a61722e04c738328a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gert,

Thanks!

All,

As was discussed in Vancouver, the = chairs will work with Gert to draft a liaison to ITU-T SG15 for their Septe= mber meeting to get comments on this draft. We will circulate the draft lia= ison to the WG for comments before sending it to SG15.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 = at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt <gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl> wrot= e:

=20 =20 =20
Hi, As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signals. The following changes have been made to the document: 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has been removed 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have been made and nits have been addressed Regards, Gert.
-------- Original Message --------

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700

From: internet-drafts@ietf.org

To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl

CC: peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com
A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop
Revision:	 01
Title:		 Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet
Creation date:	 2012-08-14
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 40
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts=
/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt=
-pwe3-tsop
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-t=
sop-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft=
-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01

Abstract:
   This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP)
   mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or
   Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format,
   suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network
   (PSN).  The key property of the TSoP  method is that it transports
   the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no
   use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal
   format, other than its bit rate.  The TSoP transparency includes
   transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal.
   This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity,
   both in implementation and during operation.

                                                                           =
      =20


The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

Subject:	New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700
From:	internet-drafts@ietf.org
To:	gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
CC:	peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com

--f46d04462c0a61722e04c738328a-- From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Tue Aug 14 07:26:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05AA21F8587 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:26:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QaSDYTKueTz for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C6221F8549 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.138.51:59302] by server-12.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 8A/B9-04073-C106A205; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:26:36 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-174.messagelabs.com!1344954395!9541859!1 X-Originating-IP: [168.87.1.157] X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.3; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 14422 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2012 14:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com) (168.87.1.157) by server-13.tower-174.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 2012 14:26:36 -0000 X-AuditID: a8571406-b7f176d000000aff-bc-502a5ca54083 Received: from FRGRWPVCH001.ecitele.com (Unknown_Domain [10.1.18.35]) by fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E0.47.02815.5AC5A205; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:11:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FRIDWPPMB002.ecitele.com ([169.254.4.244]) by FRGRWPVCH001.ecitele.com ([10.1.18.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:11:34 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNeg6fnhKpq/NbiEW/MhcXWgp9aZdZC90AgABHEJA= Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:11:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.42.92] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5ABDFRIDWPPMB002ecite_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA3VTa0gUURjtzszujubEuGl7XXoMA0Jau6w9aItWgijshZsKShY17Vx3hnZn lplNNPphDyrWnvS2l5Ga9loSoaJ+1GZQm1H0ptIIH1n2gJIsgmpmJ80//Tv3O+ee8917v0vi 1j0WOylKYaRIXIA1JxPJYITd0bA82+v6vDXF3fGkweLuanprce/80kLMwfMuvT5gyrtS027J q6v7gXnxZVVgNidJcpgLI4ZHqs/DehWxnPNVsozIe9gclgkFOB8KIinsYblQCEk8m5s8WyuK EoMkn8yLkt/DLijMd7jd02c6ctjcIkFUGeQIcmKACSJV5fyI0Sp6lxKPeKZMVpiwgBgF+cSQ iFbtwIVHWz6YQr8PYhXdvfOrQLQfREASCelpsOPlrb94DHzQETVHQDJppeMA1l7eSRiLegBf 9W7CdZWZ9sDms+1mHafRK+Dhqz9MOsZpCC/uvYjpeDRdDC9E202GpgS+2XD3r34WvHBkawIT dCbs7v+YSKboJbD6fLXFCGsE8PyzBwkiiV4KD21vTWCgtTcQP4cZYTb4ousEZrRNw7pr93ED p8N3nb9MBh4PNzY9thh6GbbsekgYYanwzuEuwtBkwBuNz4ndYEzNMNuaYVtqhm0x6pNh7dUv ZgNPgg0n+/BB3Ha9ExterwWWMwCWKSIfCJWrq12u6U7tPcIogJw+OdgMtFlqLE4zXwZVu50x QJOATaF6p2V5rSauXK0MxkAGibHpVN+ybK911GqZrxQ4VViprA0gNQYgibNplFKgcRTPVa5D ijxIzdNudw9uH+mT9XkIr5zqcv1/wdqoaEFuvpX2a/O5BqEQUgZ9xpIkC6lzpVpEqoL8qKJM DIT/0RiZpLeRorVxVNdQaogLqqLf4OMgk9we6X4JrIQkS8huo9r1c9C6SFgrDfm8Bzbt4KOp iG6Rok3wkMN7zRzTzMvJhLn2f4YoexWYUfI5tfBART4qWdQ0xfXdOfH4t1PbiuKBGWts0XT8 Xo+z5/jbzLL9n8Tr7+IZx25+HTchsrHzVtJiob75TZvjtL005r2xPMM9kNbak7Vv3tzWWGHL kqOOO1NKJxf13aM+DWy+VN278OORn0sL5o5vEfqfnq7v7LidepJ+se/grLYrrvUsoQpcTjau qNwfckLJFSQEAAA= Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:26:42 -0000 --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5ABDFRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Andy and Gert, I have looked up the draft in order to understand how the problem of the SSM= (carried in the S1 overhead byte) is resolved. My reading of Appendix C (that deals with synchronization issues) is that th= e "solution" is moved outside the PW domain. E.g., in Section C.4 "Layer 2 Synchronized PEs" the draft suggests that in a= certain scenario "the S1-byte should be configured to "SSU-A" (SDH) or "= ST2" (SONET) on the corresponding egress port of CE1" while in a different s= cenario "the S1-byte should be configured to "Don't Use for Synchronization"= on the corresponding egress port of CE1". The difference between these sce= narios is the quality of the reference clock available to PE2, i.e., somethi= ng that is not really known to the operator that configures CE1. (The refere= nce model for synchronization is shown in the copied diagram below). ----- direction of transmission -----> Ref2 Ref3 | | Ref1 | | Ref4 | V V | | +--------+ +--------+ | V | Clk2 | | Clk3 | V +------+ |--------| |--------| +------+ | Clk1 | | STM-N /| | TSoP /| | Clk4 | |------| | / | | -PW / | |------| | | | / | | / | | | | SDH1 |--------->| / |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>| / = |--------->| SDH2 | | | STM-N | / | TSoP | / | STM-N | | | | | / | Packets | / | | | +------+ | / TSoP | | / | +------+ CE1 |/ -PW | |/ STM-N | CE2 | +--------+ +--------+ | | PE1 PE2 | | | | | | | |-- AC1 -->| |=3D=3D=3D=3D PSN =3D=3D=3D>| |-- AC2 -= ->| | | | | | |--------- Pseudowire --------->| | Up- | | Down- stream |------------- STM-N (multiplex) section ------------>| stream +---------------------------------------------------+ | Clk1 is the system clock of CE1, locked to Ref1 | | Clk2 is the system clock of PE1, locked to Ref2 | | Clk3 is the system clock of PE2, locked to Ref3 | | Clk4 is the system clock of CE2, locked to Ref4 | +---------------------------------------------------+ Figure 9. Reference network for analysis of TSoP synchronization requirements IMHO and FWIW it would be much more appropriate to explain (in the "Applicab= ility Statement" section) that while TSoP passes the S1 value transparently,= it does not guarantee that it correctly reflects the actual timing quality= of the recovered STM-N stream. Accordingly, the customer SHOULD by configur= ation exclude the recovered STM-N streams from the lists of potential clock= sources of the CE devices. My 2c, Sasha From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andr= ew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-ts= op-01.txt Gert, Thanks! All, As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a lia= ison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft= . We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending= it to SG15. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt > wrote: Hi, As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-manhou= dt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnostic e= ncapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signals. The following changes have been made to the document: 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has be= en removed 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were rai= sed on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have been= made and nits have been addressed Regards, Gert. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl CC: peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, s= tephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop Revision: 01 Title: Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet Creation date: 2012-08-14 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 40 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tso= p-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= -01 Abstract: This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP) mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format, suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network (PSN). The key property of the TSoP method is that it transports the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal format, other than its bit rate. The TSoP transparency includes transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal. This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity, both in implementation and during operation. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5ABDFRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Andy and Gert,

I have looked up the draft= in order to understand how the problem of the SSM (carried in the S1 overhe= ad byte) is resolved.

My reading of Appendix C (t= hat deals with synchronization issues) is that the “solution” is= moved outside the PW domain.

the S1-byte should be configured to "SSU-A" (SDH) or "ST2"= (SONET) on the corresponding egress port of CE1” while in a different scenario “the S1-byte should be configured to "Don't Use for Synchronization" o= n the corresponding egress port of CE1̶= 1;. The difference between these scenarios is the quality of the refer= ence clock available to PE2, i.e., something that is not really known to the ope= rator that configures CE1. (The reference model for synchronization is shown= in the copied diagram below).

&= nbsp; ----- direction of transmiss= ion ----->

&= nbsp; = ; Ref2 &nbs= p; Ref3&nb= sp; &= nbsp;

&= nbsp; = ; | &n= bsp; = | &n= bsp;

R= ef1 = | &nb= sp; | = ; &nb= sp; Ref4

&= nbsp;| &nbs= p; V = &nbs= p; V = |

&= nbsp;| &nbs= p; +--------+ &= nbsp; +--------+ &nbs= p; |

&= nbsp;V &nbs= p; | Clk2 | = ; | Clk3 | = ; V

+------&#= 43; |--------| &n= bsp; |--------|&= nbsp; +------+<= /o:p>

|------| &nbs= p; | = / | = | -PW / | |----= --|

| = ; | | = ; / | = ; | / | &nb= sp; | |

| SDH1 |---------&= gt;| / |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D&g= t;| / |--------->| SDH2 |=

| = ; | | = ; / | Packets | / = ; | = | |

+------+&n= bsp; | / TSoP | &= nbsp; | / &= nbsp; | &#= 43;------+

CE1&nb= sp; |/&nbs= p; -PW | &n= bsp; |/ STM-N | &= nbsp; CE2

&= nbsp; | &nbs= p; +--------+ &= nbsp; +--------+ &nbs= p; |

&= nbsp; | &nbs= p; PE1 &nbs= p; P= E2 |=

&= nbsp; | &nbs= p; | = &nbs= p; | = ; |

&= nbsp; | &nbs= p; |--------- Pseudowire --------->| &= nbsp; |

Up- &nbs= p; | = &nbs= p; &n= bsp; = | Down-

stream |----------= --- STM-N (multiplex) section ------------>| stream

&= nbsp; +-----------------------------------------= ----------+

&= nbsp; | Clk1 is the system clock of CE1, locke= d to Ref1 |

&= nbsp; | Clk2 is the system clock of PE1, locke= d to Ref2 |

&= nbsp; | Clk3 is the system clock of PE2, locke= d to Ref3 |

&= nbsp; | Clk4 is the system clock of CE2, locke= d to Ref4 |

&= nbsp; +-----------------------------------------= ----------+

&= nbsp; Figure 9. Reference network for analysis= of TSoP

&= nbsp; = ; synchronization requirements

My 2c,

Sa= sha

From: pwe3-bounce= s@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM
To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-= pwe3-tsop-01.txt

Gert,

Thanks!

All,

As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a lia= ison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft= . We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending= it to SG15.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt <gmanhoudt@aimvalle= y.nl> wrote:

Hi,<= span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">

As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-ma= nhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnost= ic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signal= s.

The following changes have been made to the document:
1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires ha= s been removed
2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were= raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00
3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have= been made and nits have been addressed

Regards,
Gert.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject= :	New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= -01.txt
Date: <= o:p>	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700
From: <= o:p>	internet-drafts@ietf.org
To:	gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
CC:	peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, step= han.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com

A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt

has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the=

IETF repository.

Filename:      draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop<=
/pre>
Revision:      01
Title:         Transparent SDH/SONET=
 over Packet
Creation date:  2012-08-14
WG ID:         Individual Submission=

Number of pages: 40
URL:           &=
nbsp; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhou=
dt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop<=
/pre>
Htmlized:        http://too=
ls.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01
Diff:           =
 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-ts=
op-01
 
Abstract:
   This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Pac=
ket (TSoP)
   mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SD=
H) or
   Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packe=
t format,
   suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switc=
hed network
   (PSN).  The key property of the TSoP  method is=
 that it transports
   the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW=
, i.e., no
   use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SD=
H signal
   format, other than its bit rate.  The TSoP transparen=
cy includes
   transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client=
 signal.
   This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of co=
mplexity,
   both in implementation and during operation.
 
            =
;            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;      
 
 
The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5ABDFRIDWPPMB002ecite_-- From gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl Wed Aug 15 00:59:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC4621F8709 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3FUOhsYhhAg for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mika.eatserver.nl (mika.eatserver.nl [195.20.9.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40EB21F8724 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.242.97.150] (qore.networks.above.net [195.242.97.150] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mika.eatserver.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7F7xRio004525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:31 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localhost [127.0.0.1]) by router38.aimvalley.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5DC818303; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Endian Firewall X-Spam-CTCH-RefID: Received: from mail3.aimsys.nl (mail.aimsys.nl [10.10.0.114]) by router38.aimvalley.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26081818302; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.7.15] (pc315.aimsys.nl [10.10.7.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail3.aimsys.nl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q7F7xNxW002928; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:24 +0200 Message-ID: <502B56DB.5070103@aimvalley.nl> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:23 +0200 From: Gert Manhoudt Organization: AimValley B.V. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Vainshtein References: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050702030904090704030809" Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:59:51 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050702030904090704030809 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040202020300070701040302" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040202020300070701040302 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sasha, I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement. Let me give you my=20 take on this: The TSoP draft specifies in section 6.2.2 that the STM-N signal that is=20 recovered at the PW egress in PE2, MUST meet SONET/SDH jitter and wander = requirements. This is the key requirement. My argument is that as long as you meet this requirement, there are no=20 issues regarding S1 and nodes CE1 and CE2 can use it exactly as they=20 would when the TSoP PW would not be there. Based on this I think the=20 current TSoP draft is internally consistent (including the applicability = statements). I understand your argument to be that you can't guarantee that you can=20 meet this requirement generically in all PSNs; it depends very much on=20 the synchronization situation and the design of the STM-N clock recovery = in PE2 and the quality of Clk3. The synchronization situation can be=20 such that a practical design that meets the key requirement is virtually = impossible. I believe that both arguments are correct and non-contradictory. It=20 simply means that TSoP is not a solution that is generically applicable=20 in all situations. To address the applicability restrictions of TSoP, I've added appendix C = to explain in which situations you should be able, with reasonable=20 design requirements, to meet the key spec of 6.2.2. To summarize this=20 appendix: In situations C.1, C.2 and C.3 you can apply TSoP both for=20 data and sync transport without restrictions. In situation C.4 you can=20 transport STM-N data over the TSoP PW, but the use of the STM-N signal=20 as a synchronization source is not generically possible and requires=20 special measures involving CE1 and/or CE2. In situation C.5 even STM-N=20 data transport must be judged on a case-by-case basis and sync transport = is practically impossible. The point you raise in your e-mail is that the limitations of TSoP=20 should be mentioned in the Applicability Statements (section 10) of the=20 draft. Strictly speaking I don't think that is necessary, because, as I=20 said, if you meet the requirement in 6.2.2, there are no further=20 restrictions. But I agree that this approach may be a bit too formal, so = we could include a statement in section 10 that warns the reader that=20 meeting the requirement in 6.2.2 is not always practically possible and=20 that a forward reference is made to appendix C for further details on thi= s. Would such an addition address your concerns? Regards, Gert. On 14 aug 2012 16:11, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > Andy and Gert, > > I have looked up the draft in order to understand how the problem of=20 > the SSM (carried in the S1 overhead byte) is resolved. > > My reading of Appendix C (that deals with synchronization issues) is=20 > that the "solution" is moved outside the PW domain. > > E.g., in Section C.4 "Layer 2 Synchronized PEs" the draft suggests=20 > that in a certain scenario "the S1-byte should be configured to=20 > "SSU-A" (SDH) or "ST2" (SONET) on the corresponding egress port of=20 > CE1" while in a different scenario "the S1-byte should be configured=20 > to "Don't Use for Synchronization" on the corresponding egress port of = > CE1". The difference between these scenarios is the quality of the=20 > reference clock available to PE2, i.e., something that is not really=20 > known to the operator that configures CE1. (The reference model for=20 > synchronization is shown in the copied diagram below). > > ----- direction of transmission -----> > > Ref2 Ref3 > > | | > > Ref1 | | Ref4 > > | V V | > > | +--------+ +--------+ | > > V | Clk2 | | Clk3 | V > > +------+ |--------| |--------| +------+ > > | Clk1 | | STM-N /| | TSoP /| | Clk4 | > > |------| | / | | -PW / | |------| > > | | | / | | / | | | > > | SDH1 |--------->| / |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>| /= |--------->| SDH2 | > > | | STM-N | / | TSoP | / | STM-N | | > > | | | / | Packets | / | | | > > +------+ | / TSoP | | / | +------+ > > CE1 |/ -PW | |/ STM-N | CE2 > > | +--------+ +--------+ | > > | PE1 PE2 | > > | | | | | | > > |-- AC1 -->| |=3D=3D=3D=3D PSN =3D=3D=3D>| |-- = AC2 -->| > > | | | | > > | |--------- Pseudowire --------->| | > > Up- | | Down- > > stream |------------- STM-N (multiplex) section ------------>| stream > > +---------------------------------------------------+ > > | Clk1 is the system clock of CE1, locked to Ref1 | > > | Clk2 is the system clock of PE1, locked to Ref2 | > > | Clk3 is the system clock of PE2, locked to Ref3 | > > | Clk4 is the system clock of CE2, locked to Ref4 | > > +---------------------------------------------------+ > > Figure 9. Reference network for analysis of TSoP > > synchronization requirements > > IMHO and FWIW it would be much more appropriate to explain (in the=20 > "Applicability Statement" section) that while TSoP passes the S1 value = > transparently, it does not guarantee that it correctly reflects the=20 > actual timing quality of the recovered STM-N stream. Accordingly, the=20 > customer SHOULD by configuration exclude the recovered STM-N streams=20 > from the lists of potential clock sources of the CE devices. > > My 2c, > > Sasha > > *From:*pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf = > Of *Andrew G. Malis > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM > *To:* gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl > *Cc:* pwe3 > *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > > Gert, > > Thanks! > > All, > > As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft = > a liaison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on = > this draft. We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments = > before sending it to SG15. > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt > wrote: > > Hi, > > As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated=20 > draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a=20 > structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for=20 > SDH/SONET client signals. > > The following changes have been made to the document: > 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires=20 > has been removed > 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that=20 > were raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 > 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion)=20 > have been made and nits have been addressed > > Regards, > Gert. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > =09 > > New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > > *Date: * > > =09 > > Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700 > > *From: * > > =09 > > internet-drafts@ietf.org > > *To: * > > =09 > > gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl > > *CC: * > > =09 > > peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com=20 > ,=20 > stephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com=20 > > > A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the > IETF repository. > =20 > Filename: draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop > Revision: 01 > Title: Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet > Creation date: 2012-08-14 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 40 > URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt= > Status:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop > Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 > Diff:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 > =20 > Abstract: > This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP= ) > mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or > Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format,= > suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched netwo= rk > (PSN). The key property of the TSoP method is that it transports > the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., n= o > use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal > format, other than its bit rate. The TSoP transparency includes > transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal. > This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity,= > both in implementation and during operation. > =20 > = =20 > =20 > =20 > The IETF Secretariat > =20 > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains=20 > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI=20 > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please=20 > inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and=20 > all copies thereof. > --------------040202020300070701040302 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sasha, I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement. Let me give you my take on this: The TSoP draft specifies in section 6.2.2 that the STM-N signal that is recovered at the PW egress in PE2, MUST meet SONET/SDH jitter and wander requirements. This is the key requirement. My argument is that as long as you meet this requirement, there are no issues regarding S1 and nodes CE1 and CE2 can use it exactly as they would when the TSoP PW would not be there. Based on this I think the current TSoP draft is internally consistent (including the applicability statements). I understand your argument to be that you can't guarantee that you can meet this requirement generically in all PSNs; it depends very much on the synchronization situation and the design of the STM-N clock recovery in PE2 and the quality of Clk3. The synchronization situation can be such that a practical design that meets the key requirement is virtually impossible. I believe that both arguments are correct and non-contradictory. It simply means that TSoP is not a solution that is generically applicable in all situations. To address the applicability restrictions of TSoP, I've added appendix C to explain in which situations you should be able, with reasonable design requirements, to meet the key spec of 6.2.2. To summarize this appendix: In situations C.1, C.2 and C.3 you can apply TSoP both for data and sync transport without restrictions. In situation C.4 you can transport STM-N data over the TSoP PW, but the use of the STM-N signal as a synchronization source is not generically possible and requires special measures involving CE1 and/or CE2. In situation C.5 even STM-N data transport must be judged on a case-by-case basis and sync transport is practically impossible. The point you raise in your e-mail is that the limitations of TSoP should be mentioned in the Applicability Statements (section 10) of the draft. Strictly speaking I don't think that is necessary, because, as I said, if you meet the requirement in 6.2.2, there are no further restrictions. But I agree that this approach may be a bit too formal, so we could include a statement in section 10 that warns the reader that meeting the requirement in 6.2.2 is not always practically possible and that a forward reference is made to appendix C for further details on this. Would such an addition address your concerns? Regards, Gert.

On 14 aug 2012 16:11, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:

Andy and Gert,

I have looked up the draft in order to understand how the problem of the SSM (carried in the S1 overhead byte) is resolved.

My reading of Appendix C (that deals with synchronization issues) is that the “solution” is moved outside t= he PW domain.

E.g., in Section C.4 “Layer 2 Synchronized PEs” the dra= ft suggests that in a certain scenario “” while in a different scenario “”. The difference between these scenarios is the quality of the reference clock available to PE2, i.e., something that is not really known to the operator that configures CE1. (The reference model for synchronization is shown in the copied diagram below).

IMHO and FWIW it would be much more appropriate to explain (in the “Applicability Statement” section) that while= TSoP passes the S1 value transparently, it does not guarantee that it correctly reflects the actual timing quality of the recovered STM-N stream. Accordingly, the customer SHOULD by configuration exclude the recovered STM-N streams from the lists of potential clock sources of the CE devices.

My 2c,

Sasha

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.= org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM
To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt

Gert,
=
Thanks!

All,

As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a liaison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft. We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending it to SG15.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt <= gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl> wrote:

Hi,

As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnostic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signals.

The following changes have been made to the document:
1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has been removed
2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00
3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have been made and nits have been addressed

Regards,
Gert.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: =	New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt<= /p>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700
From:	internet-drafts@ietf.org
To:	gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl<= o:p>
CC:	peter.roberts@alcatel-lucen= t.com, stephan.roullot@alcatel-luc= ent.com

A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.tx=
t

has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and=
 posted to the

IETF repository.

Filename:      draft-manhoudt-pw=
e3-tsop

Revision:      01
                Title:         Tr=
ansparent SDH/SONET over Packet
                Creation date:  2012-08-14
                WG ID:         In=
dividual Submission
                Number of pages: 40
                URL:        =
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt=

                Status:       &nb=
sp;  http://datatracker.ietf.=
org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop
                Htmlized:        =
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-man=
houdt-pwe3-tsop-01
                Diff:        =
;    http://w=
ww.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01
                 
                Abstract:
                   This document describes the Transparent=
 SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP)
                   mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Di=
gital Hierarchy (SDH) or
                   Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit=
-streams in a packet format,
                   suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport =
over a packet switched network
                   (PSN).  The key property of the TS=
oP  method is that it transports
                   the SDH/SONET client signal in its enti=
rety through the PW, i.e., no
                   use is made of any specific characteris=
tic of the SONET/SDH signal
                   format, other than its bit rate.  =
The TSoP transparency includes
                   transporting the timing properties of t=
he SDH/SONET client signal.
                   This ensures a maximum of transparency =
and a minimum of complexity,
                   both in implementation and during opera=
tion.
                 
                        &nbs=
p;            =
;            =
            &=
nbsp;           &n=
bsp;           &nb=
sp;            
                 
                 
                The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
p= we3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p= we3

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

--------------040202020300070701040302-- --------------ms050702030904090704030809 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFaTCC BWUwggRNoAMCAQICAhFsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIHMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJOTDEWMBQGA1UE CBMNTm9vcmQgSG9sbGFuZDESMBAGA1UEBxMJSGlsdmVyc3VtMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5BaW1WYWxs ZXkgQi5WLjEcMBoGA1UECxMTU2VjdXJpdHkgRGVwYXJ0bWVudDE0MDIGA1UEAxMrQWltVmFs bGV5IFJvb3QgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgMjAwNzEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYV c2VjdXJpdHlAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMB4XDTExMDMxMDA4NDQzMFoXDTE0MDMxNDA4NDQzMFow gbgxCzAJBgNVBAYTAk5MMRYwFAYDVQQIEw1Ob29yZCBIb2xsYW5kMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlIaWx2 ZXJzdW0xFzAVBgNVBAoTDkFpbVZhbGxleSBCLlYuMRwwGgYDVQQLExNTZWN1cml0eSBEZXBh cnRtZW50MR8wHQYDVQQDFBZnbWFuaG91ZHRAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMSUwIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkB FhZnbWFuaG91ZHRAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAuw56tsNq+B1arLVy8Wl7yrM3CJ8bFO8vxcfMUnKIzT6nai5yJOzcJlqYmqQd8AexuvzC psiyZUaTz0WERQ3fcnWn4xpt8l8ae9N+vH2ym3o/ikNF7BxyXjlx+8ccSyVIpvI9Tc/bUYtV GckjKUD2webMys8IqHq6Jvjfotw6+wmTZN2tiYc88GV9F+wLdA3ZHr7EumwIxZcvzLLtGdH2 7h+DCMgDeSl1vXKtBkytcIM3Lbb5r9qtKDv0bCszDk0XYnhTRIXlNtrKHoe1OhQ3y2TuLDWX ccIs2oR9NbEEYwk1Jtn1d3Csz65TTrLXaSx4klV3to+0KPFtCsYOByKwiwIDAQABo4IBYTCC AV0wCQYDVR0TBAIwADAsBglghkgBhvhCAQ0EHxYdT3BlblNTTCBHZW5lcmF0ZWQgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUwHQYDVR0OBBYEFK/31dJRNdnlx5vxZsZf2knHSQ0HMIIBAQYDVR0jBIH5MIH2gBTb 3nb+Ge+TFaFjNRKfTCRzMuUmCaGB0qSBzzCBzDELMAkGA1UEBhMCTkwxFjAUBgNVBAgTDU5v b3JkIEhvbGxhbmQxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUhpbHZlcnN1bTEXMBUGA1UEChMOQWltVmFsbGV5IEIu Vi4xHDAaBgNVBAsTE1NlY3VyaXR5IERlcGFydG1lbnQxNDAyBgNVBAMTK0FpbVZhbGxleSBS b290IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IDIwMDcxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFXNlY3Vy aXR5QGFpbXZhbGxleS5ubIIJAL5BwL888j5TMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4IBAQB0f0bL8Ikx iELD3/7+/zuU5o0lLquoHFnu6sfut/P6jTQkF/yCl6vMKEosvcjbUtxqjM0SgugSF63hDMbf 1ruKhJvCADEkU2nJgJPQrPncVQVp64DZNAh/h951WsbYZK2vDMkRbz0312MiJzgwchtjqlbJ RZOAEBe4FYyHeliudFWSUXYAgCHFOPArBkxGbyvDFY3wYBBwX37HRJjCIK3ro1JTGRSCn1qr HHDLn/srUon/07Fmr6chFtptK9GLZJHwoMB3WduAAFVvjhbUMDP+w2GYkW9EzZNe8WhiUOQu 89WOdYj1I7IPlJ9xrFpnKkfyVGIpwaFFnfFYX8BjaJq3MYIEmjCCBJYCAQEwgdMwgcwxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAk5MMRYwFAYDVQQIEw1Ob29yZCBIb2xsYW5kMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlIaWx2ZXJzdW0x FzAVBgNVBAoTDkFpbVZhbGxleSBCLlYuMRwwGgYDVQQLExNTZWN1cml0eSBEZXBhcnRtZW50 MTQwMgYDVQQDEytBaW1WYWxsZXkgUm9vdCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAyMDA3 MSQwIgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhVzZWN1cml0eUBhaW12YWxsZXkubmwCAhFsMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCg ggKbMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgxNTA3 NTkyM1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFAFM13SeOrIdosUBBzCRuQR5L5ZNMGwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ DzFfMF0wCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEqMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0D AgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwgeQGCSsGAQQB gjcQBDGB1jCB0zCBzDELMAkGA1UEBhMCTkwxFjAUBgNVBAgTDU5vb3JkIEhvbGxhbmQxEjAQ BgNVBAcTCUhpbHZlcnN1bTEXMBUGA1UEChMOQWltVmFsbGV5IEIuVi4xHDAaBgNVBAsTE1Nl Y3VyaXR5IERlcGFydG1lbnQxNDAyBgNVBAMTK0FpbVZhbGxleSBSb290IENlcnRpZmljYXRp b24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IDIwMDcxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFXNlY3VyaXR5QGFpbXZhbGxleS5u bAICEWwwgeYGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHWoIHTMIHMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJOTDEWMBQGA1UECBMN Tm9vcmQgSG9sbGFuZDESMBAGA1UEBxMJSGlsdmVyc3VtMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5BaW1WYWxsZXkg Qi5WLjEcMBoGA1UECxMTU2VjdXJpdHkgRGVwYXJ0bWVudDE0MDIGA1UEAxMrQWltVmFsbGV5 IFJvb3QgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgMjAwNzEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVc2Vj dXJpdHlAYWltdmFsbGV5Lm5sAgIRbDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBqJj5HmsxrBF7tuR52 gZanBAgouSawkyD4F2EaLG7g7953ZzLniISxv7cgzWOiV6u/eo3Ml6iwRQZyoZhcOwHato+B C1oH7kFH8il3P7XHA5i+qmnzPFVGD0ipQJ4GI7yjl09BQInKJkEza/lAEtFpd/fAzplDTOqI Gjaga2/3KsyXtwFsfNx3vI29xQuIGMrVvQ3viavg+voEGUf678JkePmksUyfFk/ICAT0IFRt uAoWUm3MO01Anm4AB+9eQWriUrYTqIlBpvS26gKJ5aXoe0PVb/4zooYS0QsxcN0+qymjGIht azqkEbTI4sRwrfMmm1ZrLPFV6d1vMrIDuypGAAAAAAAA --------------ms050702030904090704030809-- From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Wed Aug 15 01:30:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE0021F8748 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.259 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a7JfAelksLxe for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C516F21F8759 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.138.51:19597] by server-9.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 46/F2-23952-83E5B205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:30:48 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-174.messagelabs.com!1345019447!28412029!1 X-Originating-IP: [168.87.1.157] X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.3; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 4301 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2012 08:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com) (168.87.1.157) by server-9.tower-174.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2012 08:30:47 -0000 X-AuditID: a8571406-b7f176d000000aff-91-502b5e45eb0d Received: from FRIDWPPCH001.ecitele.com (Unknown_Domain [10.1.16.52]) by fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 36.87.02815.54E5B205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:31:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FRIDWPPMB002.ecitele.com ([169.254.4.244]) by FRIDWPPCH001.ecitele.com ([10.1.16.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:30:46 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNervqUkSUBpO1rk+xlqwZTVXANJdagpjw Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:30:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120814105953.12080.34424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <502A341E.10801@aimvalley.nl> <502B56DB.5070103@aimvalley.nl> In-Reply-To: <502B56DB.5070103@aimvalley.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.42.92] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5E20FRIDWPPMB002ecite_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprKLsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCxcggpesWpx1g8GEVj8W9q8vYLZ6sfM5u 0fdpC4sDs8f2+9NYPXbOusvusWTJT6YA5qgGRpvEvLz8ksSSVIWU1OJkW6WAosyyxORKJYXM FFslQyWFgpzE5NTc1LwSW6XEgoLUvBQlOy4boGBmnkJqXnJ+SmZeuq2SZ7C/roWFqaWuoZJd SEZmsUKqbm5iZo5CbmpxcWJ6qgJQBOTKvJTUFIW0/CKFkoxUhaLU5MyCzNSEXuaMpcs72Ara rjNX/H1X3MA4Yw5zFyMnh4SAicSUjh+sELaYxIV769m6GLk4hAROMUq0LZ/LDOEsZZR4euIw E0gVm4CtxKbVd9lAbBEBU4mzmzYxgtjMAnYSb3YtAosLC4RLzN72jhWiJkLi/pPZQL0cQLaR RPcrVRCTRUBVYvdpUZAKXgFfiR0f10Kt6mOSeLpvCtgYTgEdicftd8DGMAId9/3UGiaIVeIS t57MZ4I4WkBiyZ7zUM+ISrx8/A/qGTmJppVX2CHq8yXazrxihFgmKHFy5hMWiBpJiYMrbrBM YBSbhWTsLCQts5C0QMR1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4mhnGPnPgMROy+AJG9lWMEmlFmSk5BWXFSQYG pnrA2ChJzUnVS87P3cQITEkrwkXYdjA2TNA7xCjAwajEw/titVaAEGtiWXFl7iFGSQ4mJVFe zgjtACG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc1OJDjBIczEoivNahQDnelMTKqtSifJiUKzBwJzJLcSfng1JD SbyxgQFujpI47/ogO38hgXRg6sxOTS1ILYKZI8PBoSTBGx0LtEKwKDU9tSItM6cEIc3EwQly Bg/QGfUgNbzFBYm5xZnpEPlTjNocPV1PbzNybDr44jajEEtefl6qlDhvJ0ipAEhpRmke3LRX jOJA7wvzBoBkeYCpGG7OK6AVTEArpk3TAlkBzENwKakGRqHXd0QWS2QfjpR7mvqsq6dy8cX3 Hgvfegd39QVv3vtddakWj5rd/4QXNzVFc94vbVv7z2luSPmF45Fnf968Velh2/bDgblfv11l 6oG5yfq5yTL2DKzPHtgWvFSzKD2zVvLm9V+CDLHJ/34l9n90dWze+Wq+MPviS7/EN6Uy1eic aXq88JiGtRJLcUaioRZzUXEiACLl2HAoBAAA Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:30:57 -0000 --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5E20FRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Gert, Please see inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Gert Manhoudt [mailto:gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:59 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-ts= op-01.txt Hi Sasha, I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement. Let me give you my take= on this: The TSoP draft specifies in section 6.2.2 that the STM-N signal that is reco= vered at the PW egress in PE2, MUST meet SONET/SDH jitter and wander require= ments. This is the key requirement. [[[Sasha]]] This is not what I have been speaking about. My argument is that as long as you meet this requirement, there are no issue= s regarding S1 and nodes CE1 and CE2 can use it exactly as they would when t= he TSoP PW would not be there. [[[Sasha]]] I disagree and, what is more important, the text in the draft sa= ys differently: If TSoP were not there: * CE1 could set the S1 value it transmits towards CE2 in accordance= with the quality of its current system clock source (whatever it happens t= o be). With TSoP you suggest to set it to SSU or even to DNU in certain scen= arios * CE2 could believe whatever it receives from CE1. With TSoP, if the= operator of CE1 did not follow the recommendations of the draft, CE2 would= make wrong decisions regarding selection of its system clock source Based on this I think the current TSoP draft is internally consistent (inclu= ding the applicability statements). I understand your argument to be that you can't guarantee that you can meet= this requirement generically in all PSNs; it depends very much on the synch= ronization situation and the design of the STM-N clock recovery in PE2 and t= he quality of Clk3. The synchronization situation can be such that a practic= al design that meets the key requirement is virtually impossible. [[[Sasha]]] This is not the point IMO. The point is that usage of TSoP prev= ents the customer from operating SONET or SDH CE devices in the normal way w= hen it comes to the system clock selection/clock quality distribution. I believe that both arguments are correct and non-contradictory. It simply m= eans that TSoP is not a solution that is generically applicable in all situa= tions. To address the applicability restrictions of TSoP, I've added appendix C to= explain in which situations you should be able, with reasonable design requ= irements, to meet the key spec of 6.2.2. To summarize this appendix: In situ= ations C.1, C.2 and C.3 you can apply TSoP both for data and sync transport= without restrictions. In situation C.4 you can transport STM-N data over th= e TSoP PW, but the use of the STM-N signal as a synchronization source is no= t generically possible and requires special measures involving CE1 and/or CE= 2. In situation C.5 even STM-N data transport must be judged on a case-by-ca= se basis and sync transport is practically impossible. The point you raise in your e-mail is that the limitations of TSoP should be= mentioned in the Applicability Statements (section 10) of the draft. Strict= ly speaking I don't think that is necessary, because, as I said, if you meet= the requirement in 6.2.2, there are no further restrictions. [[[Sasha]]] I believe that you refer to the following test from 6.2.2: Subsequently, the STM-N stream towards the CE is reconstructed by playing out the buffer content with a clock that is reconstructed to have the same average frequency as the STM-N clock at the PW ingress. In addition, this clock signal must have such properties that the following requirements can be met: o A reconstructed SDH-type STM-N signal delivered to an Attachment Circuit MUST meet [G.825] and [G.823] jitter and wander requirements (for synchronization interfaces), or, o A reconstructed SONET-type OC-M signal delivered to an Attachment Circuit MUST meet [GR-253] jitter and wander requirements. I did not look up GR-253, but your reference to G.823 looks misleading to me= , because it - unsurprisingly -defines specific jitter and wander limits dep= ending on the clock quality level. And G.825 does not, per se, define any r= equirements, it just provides pointers to G.812 and G.813 with multiple opti= ons. So I am not sure these reference are very helpful. But I agree that this approach may be a bit too formal, so we could include= a statement in section 10 that warns the reader that meeting the requiremen= t in 6.2.2 is not always practically possible and that a forward reference i= s made to appendix C for further details on this. [[[Sasha]]] Please see above. Would such an addition address your concerns? [[[Sasha]]] Unfortunately, no. Regards, Gert. On 14 aug 2012 16:11, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: Andy and Gert, I have looked up the draft in order to understand how the problem of the SSM= (carried in the S1 overhead byte) is resolved. My reading of Appendix C (that deals with synchronization issues) is that th= e "solution" is moved outside the PW domain. E.g., in Section C.4 "Layer 2 Synchronized PEs" the draft suggests that in a= certain scenario "the S1-byte should be configured to "SSU-A" (SDH) or "= ST2" (SONET) on the corresponding egress port of CE1" while in a different s= cenario "the S1-byte should be configured to "Don't Use for Synchronization"= on the corresponding egress port of CE1". The difference between these sce= narios is the quality of the reference clock available to PE2, i.e., somethi= ng that is not really known to the operator that configures CE1. (The refere= nce model for synchronization is shown in the copied diagram below). ----- direction of transmission -----> Ref2 Ref3 | | Ref1 | | Ref4 | V V | | +--------+ +--------+ | V | Clk2 | | Clk3 | V +------+ |--------| |--------| +------+ | Clk1 | | STM-N /| | TSoP /| | Clk4 | |------| | / | | -PW / | |------| | | | / | | / | | | | SDH1 |--------->| / |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>| / = |--------->| SDH2 | | | STM-N | / | TSoP | / | STM-N | | | | | / | Packets | / | | | +------+ | / TSoP | | / | +------+ CE1 |/ -PW | |/ STM-N | CE2 | +--------+ +--------+ | | PE1 PE2 | | | | | | | |-- AC1 -->| |=3D=3D=3D=3D PSN =3D=3D=3D>| |-- AC2 -= ->| | | | | | |--------- Pseudowire --------->| | Up- | | Down- stream |------------- STM-N (multiplex) section ------------>| stream +---------------------------------------------------+ | Clk1 is the system clock of CE1, locked to Ref1 | | Clk2 is the system clock of PE1, locked to Ref2 | | Clk3 is the system clock of PE2, locked to Ref3 | | Clk4 is the system clock of CE2, locked to Ref4 | +---------------------------------------------------+ Figure 9. Reference network for analysis of TSoP synchronization requirements IMHO and FWIW it would be much more appropriate to explain (in the "Applicab= ility Statement" section) that while TSoP passes the S1 value transparently,= it does not guarantee that it correctly reflects the actual timing quality= of the recovered STM-N stream. Accordingly, the customer SHOULD by configur= ation exclude the recovered STM-N streams from the lists of potential clock= sources of the CE devices. My 2c, Sasha From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl Cc: pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-ts= op-01.txt Gert, Thanks! All, As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a lia= ison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft= . We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending= it to SG15. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt > wrote: Hi, As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-manhou= dt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnostic e= ncapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signals. The following changes have been made to the document: 1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires has be= en removed 2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were rai= sed on the mailing list after the issue of version -00 3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have been= made and nits have been addressed Regards, Gert. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl CC: peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, s= tephan.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop Revision: 01 Title: Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet Creation date: 2012-08-14 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 40 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tso= p-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= -01 Abstract: This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet (TSoP) mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) or Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packet format, suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switched network (PSN). The key property of the TSoP method is that it transports the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW, i.e., no use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SDH signal format, other than its bit rate. The TSoP transparency includes transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client signal. This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of complexity, both in implementation and during operation. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. --_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5E20FRIDWPPMB002ecite_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Gert,

Please see inline below.

Regards,<= /p>

Sa= sha

From: Gert Manhoudt [mailto:gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-= pwe3-tsop-01.txt

Hi Sasha,

I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement. Let me give you my t= ake on this:

The TSoP draft specifies in section 6.2.2 that the STM-N signal that is= recovered at the PW egress in PE2, MUST meet SONET/SDH jitter and wander re= quirements. This is the key requirement.

[[[Sasha]]] This is not what I have been speaki= ng about.

My argument is that as long as you meet this requirement, there are no i= ssues regarding S1 and nodes CE1 and CE2 can use it exactly as they would wh= en the TSoP PW would not be there.

[[[Sasha]]]I disagree and, what is mo= re important, the text in the draft says differently: If TSoP were not there= :

· = CE1 could set the S1 value it transmits towards CE2 in accord= ance with the quality of its current system clock source (whatever it happens to be). With TSoP you suggest to set it to SSU or even= to DNU in certain scenarios

· = CE2 could believe whatever it receives from CE1. With TSoP, i= f the operator of CE1 did not follow the recommendations of the draft, CE2 would make wrong decisions regarding selection of its sys= tem clock source

Based on this I think the current TSoP draft is internally co= nsistent (including the applicability statements).
I understand your argument to be that you can't guarantee that you can m= eet this requirement generically in all PSNs; it depends very much on the sy= nchronization situation and the design of the STM-N clock recovery in PE2 an= d the quality of Clk3. The synchronization situation can be such that a practical design that meets the key requiremen= t is virtually impossible.

[[[Sasha]]] = ;This is not the point IMO. The point is that usage of TSoP prevents the cus= tomer from operating SONET or SDH CE devices in the normal way when it comes= to the system clock selection/clock quality distribution.

I believe that both arguments are correct and non-contradictory. It simp= ly means that TSoP is not a solution that is generically applicable in all s= ituations.

To address the applicability restrictions of TSoP, I've added appendix C= to explain in which situations you should be able, with reasonable design r= equirements, to meet the key spec of 6.2.2. To summarize this appendix: In s= ituations C.1, C.2 and C.3 you can apply TSoP both for data and sync transport without restrictions. In si= tuation C.4 you can transport STM-N data over the TSoP PW, but the use of th= e STM-N signal as a synchronization source is not generically possible and r= equires special measures involving CE1 and/or CE2. In situation C.5 even STM-N data transport must be judged o= n a case-by-case basis and sync transport is practically impossible.
The point you raise in your e-mail is that the limitations of TSoP shoul= d be mentioned in the Applicability Statements (section 10) of the draft. St= rictly speaking I don't think that is necessary, because, as I said, if you= meet the requirement in 6.2.2, there are no further restrictions.

[[[Sasha]]]I believe that you refer t= o the following test from 6.2.2:

<= /p>

Subsequently= , the STM-N stream towards the CE is reconstructed by

playing out= the buffer content with a clock that is reconstructed to<= /p>

have the sam= e average frequency as the STM-N clock at the PW ingress.<= /p>

In addition,= this clock signal must have such properties that the

following re= quirements can be met:

<= /p>

&= nbsp; o A reconstructed SDH-type STM-N signal delivered to an

&= nbsp; Attachment Circuit MUST meet [G.825] and [G.823] jit= ter and

&= nbsp; wander requirements (for synchronization interfaces)= , or,

<= /p>

&= nbsp; o A reconstructed SONET-type OC-M signal delivered to an

&= nbsp; Attachment Circuit MUST meet [GR-253] jitter and wan= der

&= nbsp; requirements.

<= /p>

I did not look up GR-253, but your reference to G.823 looks misleadi= ng to me, because it – unsurprisingly -defines specific jitter and wander limits depending on the clock quality level. And G.825 do= es not,per se, define any requirements, it just provides point= ers to G.812 and G.813 with multiple options. So I am not sure these refe= rence are very helpful.

But I agree that this approach may be a bit too formal, so we= could include a statement in section 10 that warns the reader that meeting= the requirement in 6.2.2 is not always practically possible and that a forward reference is made to appendix C for= further details on this.

[[[Sasha]]] Please see above.

Would such an addition address your concerns?

[[[Sasha]]] Unfortunately, no.

Regards,
Gert.

On 14 aug 2012 16:11, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:

Andy and Gert,<= /o:p>

I have looked up the draft= in order to understand how the problem of the SSM (carried in the S1 overhe= ad byte) is resolved.

My reading of Appendix C (t= hat deals with synchronization issues) is that the “solution” is= moved outside the PW domain.

= the S1-byte should be configured to "SSU-A" (SDH) or "ST2"= (SONET) on the corresponding egress port of CE1” while in a different scenario “the S1-byte should be configured to "Don't Use for Synchronization" o= n the corresponding egress port of CE1̶= 1;. The difference between these scenarios is the quality of the refer= ence clock available to PE2, i.e., something that is not really known to the ope= rator that configures CE1. (The reference model for synchronization is shown= in the copied diagram below).

  &= nbsp;           ----- dire= ction of transmission ----->

=

  &= nbsp;            = ;         Ref2   &nbs= p;            &n= bsp; Ref3          &= nbsp;

  &= nbsp;            = ;           | &n= bsp;            =        |      &n= bsp;            =

  &= nbsp;  Ref1         =        |     &n= bsp;            =    |          &n= bsp;      Ref4

  &= nbsp;   |        &nbs= p;          V   =             &nbs= p;     V        =            |

  &= nbsp;   |        &nbs= p;     +--------+     &= nbsp;       +--------+  &nbs= p;           |

  &= nbsp;   V        &nbs= p;     | Clk2 |     = ;        | Clk3 | = ;           V &n= bsp;

  &= nbsp;+------+         = |--------|           = ; |--------|          = 3;------+

  = | Clk1 |          | STM-N /|&n= bsp;            | TSo= P /|          | Clk4 |

  = |------|          |  = ;    / |         = ;    | -PW / |       = ;   |------|

  = |      |       = |     / |    &nbs= p;        |     /&nbs= p; |          |  &nbs= p;   |

  = | SDH1 |--------->|    /   |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>|    /   |--------->| SDH2= |

  = |      | STM-N   |   /&n= bsp;   |    TSoP     | &nb= sp; /    |   STM-N |    &= nbsp; |

  = |      |       =    | /     |   Packets &n= bsp; | /     |       = ;   |      |

  = +------+          | /= TSoP |           &nb= sp; | /      |      &= nbsp;   +------+

  &= nbsp; CE1          &= nbsp; |/   -PW |       &n= bsp;     |/ STM-N |      &= nbsp;      CE2

  &= nbsp;       |    &nbs= p;     +--------+     &= nbsp;       +--------+  &nbs= p;       |

  &= nbsp;       |    &nbs= p;        PE1    &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;   PE2         &n= bsp;   |

  &= nbsp;       |    &nbs= p;     |        |&nbs= p;            | =        |      &n= bsp;   |

  &= nbsp;       |-- AC1 -->|  &n= bsp;     |=3D=3D=3D=3D PSN =3D=3D=3D>|  &nb= sp;     |-- AC2 -->|     &nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;       |    &nbs= p;     |        =             &nbs= p;          |   =       |

  &= nbsp;       |    &nbs= p;     |--------- Pseudowire --------->|  &= nbsp;       |     &nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;Up-    |        =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =        | Down-

  = stream |------------- STM-N (multiplex) section ------------>| stream

=

  &= nbsp;        +-----------------------= ----------------------------+

  &= nbsp;        | Clk1 is the system c= lock of CE1, locked to Ref1 |

  &= nbsp;        | Clk2 is the system c= lock of PE1, locked to Ref2 |

  &= nbsp;        | Clk3 is the system c= lock of PE2, locked to Ref3 |

  &= nbsp;        | Clk4 is the system c= lock of CE2, locked to Ref4 |

  &= nbsp;        +-----------------------= ----------------------------+

=

  &= nbsp;        Figure 9. Reference ne= twork for analysis of TSoP

  &= nbsp;            = ;       synchronization requirements

=

My 2c,
     Sa= sha
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:34 PM
To: gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl<= /a>
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-= pwe3-tsop-01.txt

Gert,

Thanks!

All,

As was discussed in Vancouver, the chairs will work with Gert to draft a lia= ison to ITU-T SG15 for their September meeting to get comments on this draft= . We will circulate the draft liaison to the WG for comments before sending= it to SG15.

Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Gert Manhoudt <gmanhoudt@aimvalle= y.nl> wrote:
Hi,<= span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New","ser= if"">

As agreed during the IETF-84 meeting in Vancouver, I've updated draft-ma= nhoudt-pwe3-tsop (to version -01). This document proposes a structure agnost= ic encapsulation and Pseudowire transport method for SDH/SONET client signal= s.

The following changes have been made to the document:
1. The use of IP as a possible PSN layer for this type of Pseudowires ha= s been removed
2. Appendices B, C and D have been added to address the points that were= raised on the mailing list after the issue of version -00
3. Quite a number of textual improvements (at least in my opinion) have= been made and nits have been addressed

Regards,
Gert.
-------- Original Message --------

Subject= :

New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= -01.txt

Date: <= /b>

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700

From: <= /b>

internet-drafts@ietf.org

To:

gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl

CC:

peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, step= han.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com
A new version of I-D, draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Gert Manhoudt and posted to the=
IETF repository.
 
Filename:      draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop
Revision:      01
Title:         Transparent SDH/=
SONET over Packet
Creation date:  2012-08-14
WG ID:         Individual Submi=
ssion
Number of pages: 40
URL:           &=
nbsp; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manhou=
dt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop<=
/pre>
Htmlized:        http://too=
ls.ietf.org/html/draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01
Diff:           =
 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-manhoudt-pwe3-ts=
op-01
 
Abstract:
   This document describes the Transparent SDH/SONET over Pac=
ket (TSoP)
   mechanism to encapsulate Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SD=
H) or
   Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) bit-streams in a packe=
t format,
   suitable for Pseudowire (PW) transport over a packet switc=
hed network
   (PSN).  The key property of the TSoP  method is=
 that it transports
   the SDH/SONET client signal in its entirety through the PW=
, i.e., no
   use is made of any specific characteristic of the SONET/SD=
H signal
   format, other than its bit rate.  The TSoP transparen=
cy includes
   transporting the timing properties of the SDH/SONET client=
 signal.
   This ensures a maximum of transparency and a minimum of co=
mplexity,
   both in implementation and during operation.
 
            =
;            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;      
 
 
The IETF Secretariat
 
 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains infor= mation which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If= you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, p= hone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

--_000_F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA020D5E20FRIDWPPMB002ecite_-- From amalis@gmail.com Wed Aug 15 06:07:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC4D21F8702 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrbDhHKK7tOd for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4627221F8576 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so2457627obb.31 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=ppqux6LSccJYChoZVfRd3vsMJ5LSHT/J28+1heGRFlo=; b=QeEHairgWooFha4HZCIoIkv9WzvENdtralDV7Ie0FWUvZ1b0FE191R6osd7t+T/V1Q uyiePyzyVRvyPbmpbyNT9EqVq+RuoK4RsNGGCggbwp5GDN4TpTQauUsdQ4TCOtVJY5fj K1oxUG9pFu4Bu2o3wgtANS9I5tZZV+0Nv9uSkMG2RiROZ5FpxD5EUvky7Sf3CdilPwOE FFgPnGRnk8imHlEgOr/U5cd/shLMgYK5BBoh3CisEtG1PSNDDs2BBVVIbMMdiI7crqbD y/T01UVpBHxGmsu9zp9skd1Jqvb8Cx3noKJZGyB6/IBt3ao0pb0Sv6sI1z4tu3NQbL7+ 2ERg== Received: by 10.182.117.71 with SMTP id kc7mr23660830obb.62.1345036044913; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:07:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:07:04 -0400 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:07:25 -0000 PWE3ers, As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the next few days. Thanks, Andy ------------ Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842 (SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware. Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of RFC 4842. Best regards, Andrew G. Malis Matthew Bocci PWE3 Working Group Chairs From davari@broadcom.com Wed Aug 15 06:28:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9194121F883C for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:28:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.815 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnlykgWP8wiq for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F68721F883A for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.192.224] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:10 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 4500596E-606A-40F9-852D-14843D8201B2 Received: from SJEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.15) by SJEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.192.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:28:24 -0700 Received: from SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [fe80::bc15:c1e1:c29a:36f7]) by SJEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:28:24 -0700 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "Andrew G. Malis" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNeubwepFDUnhuiEyjXG8bSWtzvJda3eL8 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:28:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 7C357C243NK15645986-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:28:31 -0000 Hi Andy, Before sending this Liaison to ITU, did you ask whether there is enough sup= port in PWE3 to progress this draft?=20 I personally am not in favor of progressing this draft , since it is for a = very specific Scenario with very little use. We already have an RFC for Son= et/SDH CES and I don't think we yet need another one. Regards, Shahram On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: > PWE3ers, >=20 > As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a > liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 > regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any > comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we > would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the > next few days. >=20 > Thanks, > Andy >=20 > ------------ >=20 > Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent > SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the > PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire > encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842 > (SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware. > Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we > would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of > the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in > the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of > RFC 4842. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Andrew G. Malis > Matthew Bocci > PWE3 Working Group Chairs > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >=20 From amalis@gmail.com Wed Aug 15 07:37:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED4E21F87E1 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uw9dxrdr00ri for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E963221F87DE for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so2567069obb.31 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QDn/F/EeJLYFHVY+8lu8eChpk9FRyKe2fNiBh2HU3xI=; b=Gw7XGWgKP7Xp9cKx+4sH3ZhWiaxUZoZ1ULQAdS2lEf94FgTpebVm9Q2oWwU0Fu+pWe XEp+j9P48/rCHqAGX407gCaWEO/P1lPgsstS9a0ZunVJT/ApednBCaRcUH5BsyH07JW+ wnizYg04pIphhFmYRL95w53aDdNJd0UDsX8dbfecreRtFbK9gTwz5uU+NbNgyyDZMqiq Tb72+Khl/BvXcr1vlNo3rwGgl8bCjgpXN6oJLbNhi4vcQKwSGJaKmnQA6FAAX26JS2sh m/w/qHybGQmGFvxeaodJGtz3qHVHu6h3tRoZFwHXgyO8CZmtD/fNvZI1y+uA/tcOaPMi RC6w== Received: by 10.182.226.104 with SMTP id rr8mr24310570obc.41.1345041449598; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:37:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:37:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: Shahram Davari Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:37:30 -0000 Shahram, Thanks, and indeed, we have not yet called for a WG consensus on this draft. The primary reason for sending the liaison is to use SG15's reply to assist the WG in making a decision on whether to progress the draft. More information is better than less. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Shahram Davari wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Before sending this Liaison to ITU, did you ask whether there is enough support in PWE3 to progress this draft? > > I personally am not in favor of progressing this draft , since it is for a very specific Scenario with very little use. We already have an RFC for Sonet/SDH CES and I don't think we yet need another one. > > Regards, > Shahram > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: > >> PWE3ers, >> >> As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a >> liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 >> regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any >> comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we >> would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the >> next few days. >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> ------------ >> >> Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent >> SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the >> PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire >> encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842 >> (SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware. >> Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we >> would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of >> the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in >> the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of >> RFC 4842. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Andrew G. Malis >> Matthew Bocci >> PWE3 Working Group Chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> > From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Wed Aug 15 08:11:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF4F21F87B9 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.353, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PAq6-ErdN3lr for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com [85.158.143.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C65921F8622 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.143.35:36131] by server-2.bemta-4.messagelabs.com id 0C/58-31966-03CBB205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:11:44 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1345043504!5756550!1 X-Originating-IP: [168.87.1.157] X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.3; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 18581 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2012 15:11:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fridlpvsb003.ecitele.com) (168.87.1.157) by server-9.tower-21.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2012 15:11:44 -0000 X-AuditID: a8571403-b7f996d000000af3-ec-502bbc3b90e8 Received: from FRIDWPPCH001.ecitele.com (Unknown_Domain [10.1.16.52]) by fridlpvsb003.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 2B.E5.02803.B3CBB205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:11:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FRIDWPPMB002.ecitele.com ([169.254.4.244]) by FRIDWPPCH001.ecitele.com ([10.1.16.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:11:43 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "Andrew G. Malis" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNeucAhRtDb3XUVkK3SQmfWkAKWpda+htA Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VTa2wMURh1Z2a3022nGavs7YaYDA3pK1tLbLFNE5qUhK6SaCQeY+d2d9id GTPTUn5oiMSrikoT26iiqkFKGo+iSusVFUFEUPFIilKPUFJEgpmdturfme+c75xv7v0uidtf WJ2kIGpIEbkQa7URNjDMmT69JdXn6ruR5nn+sD7Gs7P3NJGD5Z2PPIvJq6v7ifmwxWVgBieK ksZpiOGR6veyPkUo4fylLCPwXjaTZeQQ50dhJGpelpNlJPJstm2GXhREBol+iRfEgJedvSA/ 3eOZkpWeyWYvDAoqg9LDnBBiwkhVuQBi9Ioxm8gjnimSFEYLIkZBfkEW0PJyPNj3+ahFvpOw dn9XvaUM9MVtA7EkpCfDLb2NmIlHwXvPT1q3ARtppzsAPHPmk9Ug7PQRAD+dLjSwlfbCpuPP ovVEeiKs/XI32ozT4+C56k3R+ghahpHLTf2a1fBAawth4kmw9dGPqJ6gk2H5xm5gYIqeCz9e r8fNLB/cemRHVB9Lz4edh7ujGOjDfe840Z/lgJ2vDvQPTcO6lru4iUfCd12/LSYeAyuvlceY +jRYe7HXauJUWH/wPW7mDoe39r0iTH0SbGt4TOwCjsiQiMiQ9siQ9siQ9lpAHAOwSBH4kFyi rnC53Bn6oWsohDL8UrgJ6GvSsCgRbwbfKjLaAU0CNp7KaUzx2S1ciVoabgdJJMaOpPY1p/rs CSskvjTIqcFlSnEIqe0AkjibSI01OIrnStchRRqgPPoh7sadcX7JuHRtmdvl+u+DdVAnC7Lz 7XRA37tVCMlIGWgdTZIspMov6q7DFRRAa4uEkPaPxshYIzleT64xNJQqc2FVCJh8B0gmK5rf PgV2QpRE5HRQ1YaINkTBYnHQpwc49H8dQW0w2Hh9MwcdenRzTDevqkoxzPV3MUg5y4Dnx6GE mTV7LbOkJWdXvT21xd50YU/enGNfn5DbsxIKshpOYXtfL+jSCt1Pc4vHf7gzofv4667cN+55 vzBbyW1rTf7+0OGpneKVpKUTNnde+rOe6+lom5Sa1riy6mbjQT9Ys/3q9xxmceujFG9c287K HffZwnOW4MvqB0se90yeRl92b2QJNchlpuCKyv0Fsd/iRfIDAAA= Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:11:46 -0000 Andy, I defer to you regarding the text of the liaison. However, maybe you should consider adding that there is no clear consensus i= n the WG regarding the technical approach presented in this draft? Regards, Sasha > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Andrew G. Malis > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:07 PM > To: pwe3@ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding > draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt > > PWE3ers, > > As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a > liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 > regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any > comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we > would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the > next few days. > > Thanks, > Andy > > ------------ > > Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent > SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the > PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire > encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842 > (SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware. > Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we > would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of > the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in > the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of > RFC 4842. > > Best regards, > > Andrew G. Malis > Matthew Bocci > PWE3 Working Group Chairs > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. From amalis@gmail.com Wed Aug 15 08:22:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAEA21F8812 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.175 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ive1hiJdmeK for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E9B21F880F for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1444535qca.31 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iYIizTOG1j+9IkTCYUP07tOJDtxjD9c2G/Bjkh7G1xc=; b=rK78XVhz2ZQIstY6z0G4u1B161FgW4+70VTGfTp1dL8nWWh1RqWdKaiNfar+7HCV77 bXBVwd6xiUyJ7a5xo9xJ+JW2cVdIVLphRPQApme2nKB4X1HdPIBib3G7MShYd+8zjj84 4aP7IlziQ9gtt1xNnqSHJklJn4g7DbPr8HU7vqy8Gfw12jnxaOBnJgc7x41Q96vUOsF0 u7sZxtD227l/yuOzOAElVhIGJYqxE0yjcMIVodFczqrGM9/x/7MNGR5EFqMionlFq9SR U+EnLuUuh65fNBncwJa2pXWWe3SlV2lCW2X+x1jdWcPQmhd9ohoZovoKgvJIzSCVcGiM YyWw== Received: by 10.60.30.195 with SMTP id u3mr2145785oeh.80.1345044146475; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:22:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:22:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: Alexander Vainshtein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:22:31 -0000 Sasha, The liaison does say "Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, ...", but if you like I can strengthen this to say: "There is currently no clear consensus in the WG regarding the technical approach presented in this draft, and to aid the WG in its decision whether to progress with this work, ..." Cheers, Andy On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > Andy, > I defer to you regarding the text of the liaison. > > However, maybe you should consider adding that there is no clear consensu= s in the WG regarding the technical approach presented in this draft? > > Regards, > Sasha > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Andrew G. Malis >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:07 PM >> To: pwe3@ietf.org >> Subject: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regardi= ng >> draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt >> >> PWE3ers, >> >> As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a >> liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 >> regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any >> comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we >> would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the >> next few days. >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> ------------ >> >> Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent >> SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the >> PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire >> encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842 >> (SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware. >> Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we >> would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of >> the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in >> the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of >> RFC 4842. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Andrew G. Malis >> Matthew Bocci >> PWE3 Working Group Chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains infor= mation which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. I= f you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail,= phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. > From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Wed Aug 15 08:31:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837D421F852E for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:31:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.93 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2z9A9UJMOVvG for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta4.messagelabs.com [85.158.143.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA4121F8527 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.143.99:4171] by server-1.bemta-4.messagelabs.com id D4/12-07754-8E0CB205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:31:52 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-216.messagelabs.com!1345044711!23088564!1 X-Originating-IP: [168.87.1.157] X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.3; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 5664 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2012 15:31:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com) (168.87.1.157) by server-12.tower-216.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2012 15:31:51 -0000 X-AuditID: a8571406-b7f176d000000aff-f1-502bc0f52dbf Received: from FRIDWPPCH002.ecitele.com (Unknown_Domain [10.1.16.53]) by fridlpvsb005.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D5.A7.02815.5F0CB205; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:32:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FRIDWPPMB002.ecitele.com ([169.254.4.244]) by FRIDWPPCH002.ecitele.com ([10.1.16.53]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:31:50 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "Andrew G. Malis" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNevnJBtsIm6HwAUCLRsZv8nSwxpda/7bw Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:31:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrOJsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCxcggpfvtgHaAwfctIhb3ri5jt+j7tIXF gclj56y77B5LlvxkCmCKamC0SczLyy9JLElVSEktTrZVCijKLEtMrlRSyEyxVTJUUijISUxO zU3NK7FVSiwoSM1LUbLjsgEKZuYppOYl56dk5qXbKnkG++taWJha6hoq2YVkZBYrpOrmJmbm KOSmFhcnpqcqAEVAbstLSU1RSMsvUijJSFUoSk3OLMhMTehlzvh5Yz5rwXrJisXrO5gaGOeK dDFyckgImEg07X/GBmGLSVy4tx7I5uIQEjjFKLH35gVGCGcpo8TRKfNZQKrYBGwlNq2+C9Yh IqAhseDjeSYQm1lAWWL77GawuLBAgcSHSzeZIGoKJf787GGEsI0kTky4zQ5iswioSnz40MUK YvMK+EpcePEEatltRomO7v1gCU6BQInzezvBGhiBzvt+ag3UMnGJW0/mM0GcLSCxZM95Zghb VOLl43+sELasxOQjvewQ9ToSC3Z/YoOwtSWWLXzNDLFYUOLkzCcsEPWSEgdX3GCZwCg+C8mK WUjaZyFpn4WkfQEjyypGibSizJScgrLiJAMDUz1gsJek5qTqJefnbmIEJpQV4SJsOxgbJugd YhTgYFTi4X2xWitAiDWxrLgy9xCjJAeTkihvxn7tACG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc1OJDjBIczEoi vPI7gHK8KYmVValF+TApC2AoTmSW4k7OB0V7SbyxgQEKR0mcd32Qnb+QQDow5WWnphakFsG0 ynBwKEnwOgFTrpBgUWp6akVaZk4JQpqJgxNkMw/QZnGQGt7igsTc4sx0iPwpRm2O/h0vbjNy bDoIJIVY8vLzUqXEeYVASgVASjNK8+CmvWIUB/pYmNcIJMsDTKFwc14BrWACWtG+H2wFMH/A paQaGPWN9DccZV2rUr/Afrv/wdkn/a6y6072W1R7YH9eg8yRqx8OT3hVmb/n27UFNccyJvIW HOMWC6ntK9jKYXIwsEao2Lra6P2s7af3/JzsZZUvPovJXUNBR/ksj3PcfEMBrWkpHGGXs27s eTjtXb/tbbd3UQKnV+4zTFaJO1ScdkK2I0/mpUyavBJLcUaioRZzUXEiALCfAKP6AwAA Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe:

I think thes= e are now ready for working group last call.

Regar= ds

Matthew

--_000_CC625867330EFmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From amalis@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 22:50:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FC321F84BF for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3XVnX-6sx79 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DEB21F84A2 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so348809obb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ivH8oLixSDW3AZcjxAxoYZ/e2swhykLAoBKprnRYs18=; b=g80fy9uOzNVw7snOMZCkOGf1sqVjNefYmRlWvZTIlXfRN04JDUtbBBOujCyuV++Bvt RGWueE5zurFST9XaWN7z7x0EPsaoCW7kxBZQZsZzZSKj9XV3/eTU+hrnnHQXJ0ygMfs8 +Tc9644SP2iGH6Tx3JAO1277wbb/wg/krSzjCNxB0lrvZkDQ3i71COltVlFd6qS9iMp/ 0QOeHd//I/oEiq8lIwg9TnS1kOUXp1sXvtIExfGrWleYXDjtxyR4max83SysYbW7Pl7+ btja1ZmY6QlZ8ifXuUCi7FIT3FzBcGj6dtZuUYIc0T9LIJV1Wlmyj1Q5VVvWNpbhmVQP EQiQ== Received: by 10.60.27.41 with SMTP id q9mr299878oeg.80.1346219448371; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:50:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBE8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455B99A@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBE8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:50:28 +0300 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: IETF-84 minutes X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:50:49 -0000 PWE3ers, We intend to make the enclosed changes to the minutes. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yaakov Stein Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM Subject: RE: [PWE3] IETF-84 minutes To: David Sinicrope Cc: BOCCI Matthew , "Andrew G. Malis" David (and Andy and Matthew) I was on vacation when the minutes came on-line, and just looked them over. A few fixes : 1) I believe that my comments on 1588oMPLS are now in place (although without my name, but that's fine) 2) In 2. Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification version 2 (VCCV2), my second comment should have said To understand VCCV there are 4 documents and more if using BFD. The options are either to write one document that includes everything, or to write a short document that only obsoletes RA and adds Type 4. The WG needs to determine the way forward. 3) In 6. Transparent SDH/SONET over Packet my first comment should say YJS: 4553 like techniques were considered (at the time). This draft is "hacks" SDH in a number of bad ways. When physical layer continuity is broken, the SDH architecture has requirements. My second comment should say YJS: I have seen this used in many places. 4) In 10. MPLS-TP Pseudowire Configuration using OpenFlow 1.3 I asked if this was only an academic exercise. I believe that the answer was yes. nits: Sharham -> Shahram require -> require aa -> a why -> why Y(J)S From amalis@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 23:09:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719DC11E8097 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aoMkv8gUEZjk for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A1021F8498 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so374478obb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=yf2tnFsPmNz0N26m+3s/WaYTlyMvM/IdZkpRMoZJcDM=; b=z/VBiAwdzWaiNUDCqkSZnPLYFSE+jKa/VL3vMfFlklHHkz1dj5F12/AbBXIsgs5jBJ sARDnXDNTKRCWoHhOweuzPHs1Vc+W9vKYQRrAMx7ZA9PGfuG+CgQ5Ukg8pRvtOLm9r6f 4gfKGxAlIggYzvdkkavvXlcz8fHoU2QzeG629KsOAt44kVVH6+cRqcqzsDqgGLJMb2rr wxFLNv2NoSZI974ajGlYuiFEIuBHoHccyMSCyxJhILSWcW9dwcRLBuI5gS19RXxe89CO ORUCD9ycHPwORorinMusQx4AKpxgU0AQaeBsAm0GeyackWwPhyrMVvT1z0Bm63cGMCwB XNOQ== Received: by 10.60.6.167 with SMTP id c7mr326724oea.88.1346220594357; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:09:34 +0300 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:09:55 -0000 PWE3ers, This begins a two-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be re-disclosed. This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > All, > > The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have recently > been updated: > > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt > draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt > > Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been > relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in the > working group over many years. > > I think these are now ready for working group last call. > > Regards > Matthew From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Aug 28 23:13:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD0E11E80C5 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:13:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.654, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2q9VBCziN47 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121A411E8097 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q7T6DVlv017506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:13:31 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:13:31 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:13:28 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2FrO8QT3srozyLRb+rZZc+XBeQYwAAG4CA Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D6702E18704D5@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:13:36 -0000 Ok to be sent to IESG Not aware of IPR -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: woensdag 29 augustus 2012 8:10 To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segm= ent PW drafts PWE3ers, This begins a two-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be re-disclosed. This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > All, > > The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have recent= ly > been updated: > > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt > draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt > > Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been > relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in th= e > working group over many years. > > I think these are now ready for working group last call. > > Regards > Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Wed Aug 29 03:58:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6900521F8624 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:58:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.599, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ej4BfC2lQoC for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4149521F8491 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.168.119] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 232551397396305; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:51:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 87D6477FDC0; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:54:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q7TAwAcY064485; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:58:10 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: pwe3@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:57:29 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-08-29 18:58:09, Serialize complete at 2012-08-29 18:58:09 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003C420348257A69_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q7TAwAcY064485 Cc: yaakov_s@rad.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:58:19 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 003C420348257A69_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I prefer option C, to have a quick doc first. Lizhong > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:00:20 +0000 > From: Yaakov Stein > To: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" > Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 > Message-ID: > <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > PWE chairs, > > At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update document, > or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. > > Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a "tutorial". > > To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the > minutes) an underwhelming response. > My own email to the list elicited only three responses. > > Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? > (A - quick doc B - full doc C - A and then possibly B later on) > > (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave > A, and Mach C in favor of B. > I personally like C too.). > > Y(J)S > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120826/72bad3df/attachment.htm> > > ------------------------------ > --=_alternative 003C420348257A69_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I prefer option C, to have a quick doc first.

Lizhong

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:00:20 +0000
> From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
> To: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
> Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" <pwe3@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2
> Message-ID:
> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> PWE chairs,
>
> At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update document,
> or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired.
>
> Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a "tutorial".
>
> To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the
> minutes) an underwhelming response.
> My own email to the list elicited only three responses.
>
> Could you ask for people to express their opinions ?
> (A - quick doc B - full doc C - A and then possibly B later on)
>
> (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave
> A, and Mach C in favor of B.
> I personally like C too.).
>
> Y(J)S
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120826/72bad3df/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
> --=_alternative 003C420348257A69_=-- From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Aug 29 06:40:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FFB21F865B for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.481, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o+tWSOGDOZpG for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E0021F8554 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q7TDeZPU012525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:40:46 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.36]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:40:42 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:40:40 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2F6+FhaBpQR4tPTk2Ar/xo/hqSgw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:40:50 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR that has not be declared already. Matthew On 29/08/2012 07:09, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: >PWE3ers, > >This begins a two-week working group last call for >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send >comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including >the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts >have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG, >even if you don't have other comments. > >Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in >compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for >more details). > >If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond >to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The >drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been >received from each author and contributor. > >If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author >or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware >of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF >rules. > >Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on >draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be >re-disclosed. > >This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012. > >Thanks, >Andy > >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > wrote: >> All, >> >> The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have >>recently >> been updated: >> >> draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt >> draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt >> >> Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been >> relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in >>the >> working group over many years. >> >> I think these are now ready for working group last call. >> >> Regards >> Matthew >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From yaakov_s@rad.com Wed Aug 29 23:43:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A644311E80A3 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:43:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rz8vj+cZVute for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC7421F845F for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Aug 2012 08:56:07 +0300 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:43:01 +0300 From: Yaakov Stein To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: AQHNhnqyaVQ14RJRm0mIj6N+s73mtQ== Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:43:00 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455F7E2@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.115.243.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A090206.503F0B76.006A,ss=1,fgs=0 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:43:11 -0000 These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture into a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never define the routing protocols to use it. So I definitely support the concept. However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS requirements. Is this true ? In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of reserving BW for a particular PW. Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doi= ng that (not to mention making it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is implied in Figure 1. And what is the solution suggested here ? A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. How is this TLV used ? In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. Yes, that makes sense. But then When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the PSN= . =20 How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve BW fo= r the PW ? Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting to smell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the aroma come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. Y(J)S From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Aug 31 16:21:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4682011E80F3; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bG7ba7AETqO; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B42211E80F2; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D8418B1E007; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:19:03 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120831231903.D8418B1E007@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PWE3] RFC 6718 on Pseudowire Redundancy X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:21:33 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6718 Title: Pseudowire Redundancy Author: P. Muley, M. Aissaoui, M. Bocci Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: August 2012 Mailbox: praveen.muley@alcatel-lucent.com, mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Pages: 18 Characters: 41486 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-09.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6718.txt This document describes a framework comprised of a number of scenarios and associated requirements for pseudowire (PW) redundancy. A set of redundant PWs is configured between provider edge (PE) nodes in single-segment PW applications or between terminating PE (T-PE) nodes in multi-segment PW applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW to use for forwarding PW packets to one another, a new PW status is required to indicate the preferential forwarding status of active or standby for each PW in the redundant set. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC

Subject= :	New Version Notification for draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop= -01.txt
Date: <= /b>	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:59:53 -0700
From: <= /b>	internet-drafts@ietf.org
To:	gmanhoudt@aimvalley.nl
CC:	peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com, step= han.roullot@alcatel-lucent.com