RE: Recommendation for SUA modifications

All,

Contrary to what Brian says, the Implementor's Guide is NOT just for errata.

It is also our vehicle to document and fix bugs and ambiguities in the RFC itself. This is why we make the expense and
effort to attend the plugtests - to find the bugs and ambiguities in the RFC.

Barry Nagelberg
Adax, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 10:08 AM
To: Haresign Lincoln
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Valerie Gastaud;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications


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/

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran