Re: (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now Available

Davidson,,

Davidson, Mark wrote:                                           (Thu, 25 May 2006 08:25:27)
> Brian's objections are the same ones he raised before Jeff's draft was
> even written.
> 
> I was at the M2PA plugtest and I will say that most of the issues in
> Jeff's draft did not appear (the one I know of for sure was that not
> everyone had the same initial FSN).  But the testing I saw only covered
> basic alignment, traffic handling, processor outage of in-service links
> and congestion.  Issues such as processor outage and recovery during
> proving were not tested to my knowledge.  

I agree that it would be a good starting point to strike all items from
Jeffery's IG expect the FSN.

> 
> The additional states introduced by the processor outage recovery
> procedure (waiting for an LSR on stream 1) introduces several issues
> that should be clarified (or failing the link should be an option as
> they really aren't worth the effort required to solve them).

That was the change made at 48 hours.  There is no waiting for LSR state
in the RFC.

> 
> Some of the issues in the draft WERE discussed on this list (e.g.
> alignment bugs in Q.703 SDLs) and satisfactory answers were not
> forthcoming.

Which issues where those?  I don't think that bugs in SDLs developed by
the ITU are within the scope of M2PA.  Do you?

> 
> It is certainly better to have the discussion than not to, and protocol
> issues/clarification do belong in an IG.

Yes, I agree, after the disccussion, not before it as we have now.


--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/