Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposed Changes to CEP

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:26:44 +0200

Ron,  

> 1. CEP header: align with recommended control word. Use L and R
>   bits similar for remote/forward defect indications. Use 16 bit
>   sequence number, length and fragmentations bits. Shorten structure
>   pointer from 13 to 12 bits supporting payload sizes up to 4096
bytes. 

I think this is a great idea.

(and if you need an extended CW, that requirement will be signalled
and constant for the life of the connection,
and thus does not need an indication in the CW.)

We can now make the PWE CW not merely the "recommended CW"
but the mandatory one.

Y(J)S

<snip>

> 4. Remove RTP encapsulation

Does that mean you do not see any use for common-clock
mode timing recovery ?

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Ron Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:20:47 +0300

Yaakov,

> Does that mean you do not see any use for common-clock

EPAR is a built-in CEP mechanism described in CEP-10 used in all
deployments to deliver differences between service clock and common
clock. We have not seen up till now a scenario where RTP adds benefit on
top of EPAR. Use of RTP is described in CEP-10 and we will follow WG
input whether to leave it there or remove it from CEP-11.

Thanks
Ron 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:27 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Proposed Changes to CEP

Ron,  

bytes. 

(and if you need an extended CW, that requirement will be signalled and
constant for the life of the connection, and thus does not need an
indication in the CW.)

Y(J)S

<snip>

Y(J)S