Subject: RE: draft-nadeau-pwe3-oam-msg-map-04.txt

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:28:22 -0500

One question inside. Forgive me for pruning out
most of your lengthy reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:00 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-nadeau-pwe3-oam-msg-map-04.txt

Hi Peter...a few observations below....
> Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) wrote 24 March 2004 15:01

> Ben,
> 
> If you read the draft, you will see that at no point it is 
> suggested that ATM or SONET alarms should be mapped to PW 
> alarms.
NH=> I am being pedantic here, but one does not map 'alarms' between
layer networks under any situations....even those where the func arch
requirements of layer networks involved are not violated.  The only OAM
semantic that should be passed between layer networks is the FDI (the
purpose being to *suppress alarms*)....and then only in an arch valid
client/server case, this should not passed *between* layer networks when
operating in a peer-partition sense.  And to be clear why, I have
attempted an expanation below:

	Why should one "not map 'alarms' between layer networks"? It 
seems to me that this is done in a variety of contexts today. Can 
you justify why this is not a good idea. 

	--Tom