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

Hi Brian,

Some comments and questions inline.

Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

>Mark,
>
>Davidson, Mark wrote:                      (Fri, 26 May 2006 09:22:50)
>  
>
>>The waiting occurs after the LSPR is sent (an LSR has not yet been
>>sent).
>>I.e., the LPO side waits for the first LSR, but the RPO side does not
>>need to wait for the second one.  The change you refer to affected
>>the RPO side.  The wait I'm referring to is on the LPO side.
>>    
>>
>
>Just as the side exiting LPO must wait for a FISU or MSU in ANSI
>T1.113.3-2000 Clause 8 (Q.703 has little to say on the matter).
>M2PA just uses LSR in this case instead of a FISU or MSU.
>
>I take it back: "receive" in the passage you quoted can stay at
>"receive".  No change required.
>  
>
I agree that the behaviour is similar to MTP2, but the effect on the
network is bad (link congestion or messages queued for arbitrary time). 
I think failing the link after T7 in this case would make the protocol
better.  Do you agree?

>  
>
>>If Q.703 is followed closely the link will not align.  I think that's
>>a problem.
>>    
>>
>
>It doesn't appear that all those Q.703 implementations out there have
>any problem aligning.
>
>So you don't think that M2PA should correct Q.703 SDLs?
>  
>
What do you think of section 2.5 of Jeff's document?  Is it a legitimate
concern?

Andrew

>--brian
>
>  
>