Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR

Norm:
Thank you for your reply.  In answer to your inquiry about my position, no I only represent myself as a participating member of 802 as I stated in my response to Mick last month.  In fact as you probably noticed last night when you walked by, my colleagues from Nortel talk to me regularly regarding my position.  However, after re-reading the Connectivity Fault Management PAR and then listening closely to the Working Group reviews in the Monday 802 Plenary, I maintain my position that 802.1 needs to host a Tutorial on the subject prior to receiving a PAR approval.   In the Monday reports, you would have heard many of the wireless groups from .11 to .21 mention connectivity (or lack thereof) work items that specifically match the Scope statement in the 802.1 PAR.  Many if not most of these wireless LAN's and networks will pass through an 802.1 compatible bridge and I am a firm believer that the works of all 802 Working Groups should be co-ordinated as they relate to the domain of 802.1.  Tutorials and Study Groups are the recognized procedures for this, and since I was aware of your time element, I did respond to Mick in time for 802.1 to request a Tutorial slot at this (March) plenary.

I am well aware of the work going on in ITU, both in SG15/Q12 where I am a member of the USA Delegation and where Malcolm Betts is rapporteur, and also in SG13/Q3, and I am in full agreement that service providers are quite active in those bodies.  However ITU is an accredited body which operates with differing rules than does IEEE 802.  My (individual) position is not that the work as defined by the PAR is not relevant and should not be ultimately moved forward within 802.1.  Quite the contrary.  My position is only that the Connectivity Fault Management PAR as it is presently written needs to be socialized within all of 802.   Earlier in the year I did my research on the bridging needs for the emerging wireline and wireless projects and then sent my note out to Mick with a copy to you in time to allow the scheduling of an 802 Tutorial or Technical Plenary at this meeting.

Since I still hold that there is a strong need for the socialization of the 802.1 project in a time slot when any/most members of the other dot groups can attend, I remain opposed to the granting of a PAR at this Plenary.

Again, this is my position as an 802.3 voter and not a Nortel position.  When I attend SG15 next month, I will support the need for such work within SG15, but will also verbalize the need for the ITU-R (Wireless) Working Groups to take a part in the work via a strong liaison.
Sincerely,
Richard Brand

Norman Finn wrote:

Richard,

Is this your company position?  Dinesh Mohan, Malcom Betts, Ali Sajassi, and I have
been working in close cooperation for some time in order to make sure that the
excellent work being done in ITU-T Q.3/13, where there is an excellent understanding
of providers and their needs, is complemented by work in IEEE 802.1, which has a
correspondingly acute understanding of the Ethernet MAC service in general, and of
bridges, in particular.  For either group to progress without the other would be
dangerous to the industry and to the progression of "Metro Ethernet" standards.  It
is essential that both groups work together.  This is my understanding of the
positions of the above individuals, of our respective companies, and of the two
Working Groups.  This has been the subject of considerable discussion and, I firmly
believed, agreement among us all.  I copy all of the above, of course; I wouldn't
want to put words in their mouths.

-- Norm

Richard Brand wrote:
> Tony:
> Having read the draft, seeing a portion of the very large slide presentation made
> at the January interim, and then rereading the scope of this PAR covering
> "transport fault management", I would offer that this is major new work effort
> for 802.1 that could  have a major effect on many if not all 802 members.  Fault
> management has potential applicability to all 802 LANs.
> Given this scope, I would strongly recommend that an 802.1 Study Group be formed
> for this activity before the requesting of a PAR, in order to give notice for all
> 802 members of your intentions.  However, in line with the contents of  Procedure
> 2, I would settle for an evening tutorial presentation in March as is "highly
> recommended" in the Procedure.  This would allow all 802 members the opportunity
> to participate/provide input for a potential PAR in July.
> In this case, I am speaking for myself as a member and not for the 802.3 Working
> Group, however I will bring it up to my group at our March plenary.  FYI, 802.3
> ran thru many study group meetings in arriving at an acceptable scope for our OAM
> segment of P802.3ah and we only had one MAC to deal with.
> Regards,
> Richard Brand
> Liaison rep from 802.3 to 802.1
>
>
>
> Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
>
>>This is notification under Procedure 2 - "Procedure for PARs" that 802.1
>>intends to request SEC approval of the following draft PAR at the March
>>2004 closing SEC meeting:
>>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/ConnectivityFaultPAR-v1.2a.doc
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>=>IEEE 802.1 Email List user information:
>>http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/
>

begin:vcard 
n:Brand;Richard C.
tel;work:(408) 495 2462 : ESN 265 2462
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Advanced Technology 
adr:;;4655 Great America Pkway;Santa Clara;Ca.;95054;
version:2.1
email;internet:rbrand@Nortelnetworks.com
title:Director, Network Architecture & Applications
fn:Richard C. Brand
end:vcard