1 / 6

RFC 3946 - bis

RFC 3946 - bis. draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt. Why make a change?. A lot of noise for a few words! Issue surrounds interpretation of NCC and RCC for SONET/SDH traffic parameters RFC 3946 says… The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous

addison-pennington
Télécharger la présentation

RFC 3946 - bis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFC 3946 - bis draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

  2. Why make a change? • A lot of noise for a few words! • Issue surrounds interpretation of NCC and RCC for SONET/SDH traffic parameters • RFC 3946 says… The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular, this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value different from 0 implies a number of contiguous components greater than 1. • The authors intended “greater than or equal to 1” • Subsequent confusion with Appendix that applies “greater than or equal to 1” 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

  3. Question Raised by OIF • Issue raised by OIF doing interworking tests • OIF have been testing based on RFC 3946 encodings • Is the appendix right or is the text right? 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

  4. Endless Discussions • Discussions aimed at reaching a single solution are fruitless! • The published RFC has apparent ambiguity • There are deployed implementations using both interpretations • It appears to impossible to reach absolute consensus on the right way to solve this • In the end, this is just bits on the wire that tell a switch how to encode the signal 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

  5. Proposed Solution • Fix text to say “greater than or equal to 1” • Add some clarifications to make sure this is clear • Add a note to ensure that we remain backward compatible with RFC 3946 • Has the added benefit of clarifying interworking between SONET and SDH 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

  6. Next Steps • Consult with OIF on proposed solution • Already done • Positive response • Make the draft a working group draft • Read review and comment • Draft has <BEGIN NOTE> to indicate changes from RFC 3946 • Until end of November • WG last call in December 64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

More Related