RE: [EFM] Active to active connections are useful
Hi John -
>
> I read the comments about "local_satisfied" in the proposed
> resolutions
> (#594, #679) and I agree that it would be helpful to include
> diagnostics
> about why discovery won't complete. However it raises a
> couple of issues:
>
> 1. The ability to initiate a loopback from the CPE to the CO
> is useful for
> commissioning. This requires the CPE to be in Active mode.
> (Just because
> you let the other end be Active doesn't mean you have to support his
> Variable Requests.) I'd be interested to know whether switch
> vendors intend
> to support OAM loopback paths for this purpose?
>
I agree that this could be useful. Nothing stops anyone from making their CPE in active mode. I assume that most people would make one implementation that can be configured in either mode, but maybe I assume too much.
>
> If anyone would be willing to summarise the resolution at the
> interim for
> me, I'd be grateful.
>
I hope I get this right because I don't have the comment resolution in front of me, but I believe we adopted the following:
- Add another bit to distinguish the following cases:
a) The sender has received and processed the configuration of its peer, and decided it does not wish to accept it
b) The sender has not yet finished processing the configuration of its peer
c) The sender has not received the configuration of its peer
Currently, we just distinguish between (a) and (c).
We had a discussion about adding more error indications (rather than just a generic I don't like it), but we couldn't come up with a list or standard set of reasons to explain the rejection. So the "rejected for whatever reason" was as good as anything else we came up with.