Re: [1904.2 TF] Updated UMT Layering Diagram

[Raz Gabe <Raz.Gabe@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Glen,

Agree with Marek. For the current document step, the layering diagram is enough. If we will get into agreement on the figure, we maybe (but not necessary… )will need also the encapsulation function.

 

Rgrds

--Raz

 

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:07 AM
To: STDS-1904-2-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [1904.2 TF] Updated UMT Layering Diagram

 

Glen,

 

Why would we need to explicitly show the encapsulation function? Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but the layering diagram seems to work for the cases of packets I can think of …

 

Marek

 

From: Glen Kramer [mailto:gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 9:05 PM
To: STDS-1904-2-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [1904.2 TF] Updated UMT Layering Diagram

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

One of my action items form the last meeting was to update the UMT layering diagram

1.       In OAM Clients and IP Clients show two paths: with and without UMT encapsulation

2.       Remove TR-069 and SNMP clients

3.       Show encapsulation function

 

Updated diagram is attached, but without item 3. I am not sure where to show the encapsulation function. If you have a suggestion, please respond on the reflector.

 

(Note there are two new interfaces marked in the diagram – UMTLI and UMTHI. These will become clear from my next e-mail).

 

Thank you,

Glen