RE: [EFM] Active to active connections are useful
> Hi John -
> > I read the comments about "local_satisfied" in the proposed
> > resolutions
> > (#594, #679) and I agree that it would be helpful to include
> > diagnostics
> > about why discovery won't complete. However it raises a
> > couple of issues:
> > 1. The ability to initiate a loopback from the CPE to the CO
> > is useful for
> > commissioning. This requires the CPE to be in Active mode.
> > (Just because
> > you let the other end be Active doesn't mean you have to support his
> > Variable Requests.) I'd be interested to know whether switch
> > vendors intend
> > to support OAM loopback paths for this purpose?
> I agree that this could be useful. Nothing stops anyone from
> making their CPE in active mode. I assume that most people
> would make one implementation that can be configured in
> either mode, but maybe I assume too much.
> > If anyone would be willing to summarise the resolution at the
> > interim for
> > me, I'd be grateful.
> I hope I get this right because I don't have the comment
> resolution in front of me, but I believe we adopted the following:
> - Add another bit to distinguish the following cases:
> a) The sender has received and processed the configuration
> of its peer, and decided it does not wish to accept it
> b) The sender has not yet finished processing the
> configuration of its peer
> c) The sender has not received the configuration of its peer
How would this capability work in conjunction with IEEE 802.3AB (Connectivity Discovery)? Do we need to add something about Active Mode in the 802.3 TLV Extensions in Annex F? It would be good if somebody (else then me) from the OAM sub-team can have a look at this Draft. A task force ballot for D5.1 just ended yesterday, but there will be an interim meeting of 802.1 next week, and maybe it is a good time for comments to be inserted.