RE: Congestion in M3UA/SUA and the use of the SCON

Brian,

Thanks for your input.  With regards to the SCON, I'm more concerned
about make additions to SUA.  

Regards,
Lincoln

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:32 AM
To: Haresign Lincoln
Cc: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Congestion in M3UA/SUA and the use of the SCON

Lincoln,

In contrast to formal standards bodies, IETF WGs do not operate by
committee, they operate by consensus.  Improvements, compliments and
criticism only assist the process if they build consensus.

Your text should not impose any requirement on the SG toward the SS7
network (out of scope), should certainly not expect the SG to send DAUD
on an already congested SCTP association (doesn't make sense), and
should not make optional address in the SCON that the SG might need to
complete any SS7 message that it might wish to send.

Aside from these advance comments, I look forward to commenting on your
proposal.

Bear in mind that the WG just advanced the replacement RFC document
(rfc3332bis) a short while ago and only minor editorial changes will be
permitted.  If you keep your changes to the bare minimum the editors of
rfc3332bis might be able to include the changes before it goes to RFC.
Also, the smaller the change the greater the likelihood that the WG
might agree to your change.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                     (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:02:28)
> Brian,
> 
> I certainly don't expect anyone outside fo Comverse to design our SW.
> We are extremely successful at that deployed in 100s of networks and 
> thousands of deployments throughtout the world.  I'm not sure where 
> you are getting that from or why you would even suggest it.  What I do

> expect is that if a committee is going to come out with a standard, 
> then that committee should be willing to:
> 
> 1) accept improvements
> 2) accept compliments
> 3) accept criticism
> 
> As I stated, the SIGTRAN RFCs are quite good for their age and my hats

> off to the contributors.
> 
> In my humble opinion, I believe we can make improvements in the 
> specifications.  At the moment, I'll focus on the SUA specification.
> This is not related to "nodal TFCs".  It is related to subsystem 
> management and how that applies to SCON messages from the ASP.  The 
> ability to send an SCON from the ASP exists today in the spec.  I've 
> already outlined two problems with this in SUA.  I will propose 
> alternate text.
> 
> Regards,
> Lincoln
> 

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/

______________________________________________________________________
  This email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-Secure and has
been found clean.