| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I can add some further clarification on Alan's quote from Gilles Joncour. Q11 doesn't see itself as having a decision to make at this time. The RPR UPI code point has been reserved per the 802.17 request (0000 1001) and is noted in our GFP Living List document. (Per ITU-T procedures, we can't move the RPR code point into the GFP specification until the 802.17 group gets further along in its process, but the Living List locks that code point down so that no one else can use it for another application.) As for the Extension Header, again Q11 sees no decision to make at this time. We have already expressed the desire to have 802.17 make that recommendation back to Q11. Q11 had preserved a ring extension header as a placeholder since it had been defined prior to the 802.17 discussions. Q11 has decided that ring topologies will be supported, but we would prefer to see agreement between Q11 and 802.17. The issue that prompted Mr. Joncour's email is that we have moved the GFP ring Extension Header out of our specification and onto the the GFP Living List pending more information from 802.17. Nortel had some reservations about that move and sees value in preserving the GFP ring Extension Header for other, non-RPR applications. We expect that this will receive some further discussion in Q11 (and T1X1). In hope that clears up some of the confusion. Best regards, Steve Gorshe Editor G.7041 (ex. G.gfp) -----Original Message----- From: Alan J Weissberger [mailto:alan.weissberger@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:18 AM To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx Cc: Steve Gorshe Subject: Quote from ITU-T q11/SG15 Rapporteur 22 Nov 01) regarding RPR over GFP in G.gfp Someone (perhaps Nortel( has suggested re-introduction of the GFP Ring Extension Hdr, which had been deleted at the Oct q11/15 meeting in Geneva Giles Joncour is the rapporteur for q11/SG15. His comments below, augment Steve Gorshe's earlier mail on G.gfp Extension Hdr for Ring Applications. Much to my surprise, it seems that nothing firm has been decided by q11/15 on this topic rgds alan Alan J Weissberger DCT 2013 Acacia CT Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482 1 408 330 0564 office and voice mail Home email: ajwdct@xxxxxxxxxxx 1 408 247 9102 home -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Giles Joncour to q11/SG15 mail list/ reflector: [3] With regards with what I have read in previous emails, I have not found tracks of any decision in Q.11 concerning the "locking" of the development of the RPR and GFP rings specifications. After the June meeting we reported that "Concerning the definition of the extension header for ring applications (? 6.1.2.1.3.1.3/G.GFP) it was mentioned that it might need to be amended when Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) will have been fully defined by IEEE 802.17." However, in practice, none of them is fully defined and it seems (personnal opinion again) that the studies are closely related and should be since I do not see differences in the applications they will be used for. I would not like to have 2 standards for the same need. If a consensus is reached on the fact that the extension header for ring applications is reintroduced in G.GFP, I would not be opposed to it but I would suggest that a few words are added to the previous text in order to give as much as possible explanations about its purpose and the use of the fields identified in the extended header. Alan J Weissberger DCT 2013 Acacia CT Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482 1 408 330 0564 office and voice mail Home email: ajwdct@xxxxxxxxxxx 1 408 247 9102 home