Re: Recommendation for SUA modifications
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Haresign, Haresign Lincoln wrote: (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:54:17) > Brian, > > Personally, I am not tied to SCON. Initially I asked if SCON can by > used for ASP congestion and you seemed to imply that it could in our > first exchange. I then tried to resolve the problems with the RFC. > > If you want to use the ASP Status message, I have absolutely no problem > with this solution and would back it 100%. We should indicate in the > SUA IG that SCON can not be used for ASP->SG congestion as is currently > stated in the RFC. No, it is correct in the RFC. ASP->SG SCON is used for signalling ASP congestion: just MTP and SCCP congestion at the ASP. These new ASPTM would be for some type of ASP congestion that has yet to be defined. Also, the I-G is really a place for errata, not new (or overloaded) sets of messages with completely new procedures and new states and state transitions. It deserves a separate draft. What kind of ASP congestion are you talking about, and what is its definition? Perhaps you could contribute the text for the description of the ASP Congestion parameter? --brian -- Brian F. G. Bidulock [email protected] http://www.openss7.org/