RE: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
I think it was Heisenberg, but I can't be certain ;-)
Regards,
Tony
At 20:18 27/01/2002 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
>Gee
>
>I thought it was one of those German scientists (Heisenberg or was it
>Schroedinger?) who was the authority, not Websters.
>
>Bruce
>
>At 03:57 PM 1/27/2002 -0800, Meir Bartur wrote:
>>See attached for deterministic reply.
>>
>>Meir
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:07 PM
>>To: mattsquire@xxxxxxx
>>Cc: Bob Barrett; Geoff Thompson; Tony Jeffree; stds-802-3-efm
>>Subject: Re: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
>>
>>
>>
>>Matt,
>>
>>When we were working on 10GbE, the issue of definition of
>>"deterministic"
>>came up. I could not find it in any dictionary, including an unabridged
>>
>>Webster. I did find a definition of "deterministic at
>>http://hissa.nist.gov/dads/HTML/deterministc.html. I also found a
>>definition of "non-deterministic" at
>>http://hissa.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html. The difference
>>between the two definitions that can be related to this discussion is
>>whether there is single predetermined or multiple non-predetermined
>>delays
>>that can be returned. From your comment about a fixing a minimum and
>>maximum , which indicates that at any one instant there are multiple
>>non-predetermine delays that can be returned, is actually
>>non-deterministic.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Roy Bynum
>>
>>
>>At 01:12 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, Matt Squire wrote:
>>
>> >According to Webster, deterministic comes from determine which means
>>'to
>> >fix the boundaries.' Hence, setting a minimum and maximum is quite
>> >deterministic.
>> >
>> >Nothing we could do would operate on 'any specific granular time
>>frame',
>> >for a time frame can always be chosen which is less than 1-bit time. I
>> >know you have time frames you find desirable - other folk have other
>> >views on desirable time frames. Time frame granularity is certinly
>>one
>> >of the differentiators between the OAM transport proposals and should
>>be
>> >considered by folks when making their evaulations of the transport
>> >proposals.
>> >
>> >I'm completely unclear on what we approach 802.3ah OAM will not be
>> >taking.
>> >
>> >Roy Bynum wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Matt,
>> > >
>> > > The moment that you say minimum and maximums, you have said that it
>>is not
>> > > deterministic from the service provider viewpoint for any kind of
>>service
>> > > than "Internet" related. Deterministic means that at any specific
>> > > granular time frame, a specific level of performance monitoring is
>> > > available. On today's infrastructure, where it is managed at all,
>>that
>> > > time frame is measured in microseconds. Where infrastructure is not
>> > > managed, the facility is managed through the services using SNMP
>>embedded
>> > > in the customer revenue stream. Sometimes ATM is used to create an
>> > > dedicated channel at L2 for the SNMP, but it is still embedded as
>>part of
>> > > the service revenue stream. I think that we have agreed that the
>>802.3ah
>> > > OAM will not be taking that approach.
>> > >
>> > > Thank you,
>> > > Roy Bynum
>> > >
>> > > At 12:09 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, Matt Squire wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >All of the OAM transport proposals are completely contained within
>>802.3
>> > > >and do not rely on implementation specifics. Also, all of the
>>transport
>> > > >proposals have easily derivable deterministic minimum and maximum
>> > > >performance (bps).
>> > > >
>> > > >Bob Barrett wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Gentlemen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would assert that anything we define for OAM transport should
>>also be
>> > > > self
>> > > > > contained within 802.3 and not rely on implementation specifics
>>in
>> > order to
>> > > > > work deterministically.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Non-deterministic management transport will not meet the broad
>>market
>> > > > > acceptance criterion imho.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bob
>> > > > >
>