Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Glen, I agree on the future need to clearly show where the (de)encapsulation functions reside. Will think about it. First pass on figures looks good. What are the red “???”s meant to signify? Mark From: Raz Gabe [mailto: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]
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] 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 |