RE: SUA considerations with regards to Congestion

Brian,

OK, I look forward to commenting on your previous drafts.

I will think about the last item and provide some comments next week.

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 4:36 PM
To: Haresign Lincoln
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SUA considerations with regards to Congestion

Lincoln,

I am indeed writing a draft, however, there is a cutoff before an IETF
meeting after which it will not be published to the internet-drafts
directory until after the meeting.  I believe that date has already
passed for the 64th IETF.  Therefore it cannot be published until after
Nov. 11th.  When it becomes available the WG can comment on it and
decide if it should become a WG item or not.

I have four or five other drafts, several of which you were also
expressed interest in.  I will, as time permits, also revive those,
starting with CORID and TUA.

But you must really promote theses drafts to the WG, otherwise they will
just sit on the shelf with all the other drafts that I wrote two years
ago fixing problems.

I'm looking for rational and motivation for the introduction, a clear
definition of what the ASP congestion signalled by the ASP Status
message is, and how it differs from the SS7 congestion that is already
handled by the SCON message.  On what type of basis it is signalled
(what triggers it), how many levels it should have, what is done at the
ASP when it occurs and what can be done at the SG when it occurs.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                     (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:42:01)
> 
> I'm sending a new email to reduce the amount overhead and try to 
> summarize everything here.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Are you serious about writing a new draft?  I wasn't sure.
> 
> If so, in some of the previous emails, you asked for input.  Can you 
> summarize where you would like input in just one email?  I'd be happy 
> to contribute to anything that is moving forwards and solving problems

> in the UA RFCs.
> 
> Just to reiterate, I'm looking for a solution to the problems 
> previously outlined and I'm not tied to SCON.  If you need a me to 
> reiterate the list of problems, that are not currently solved by SCON,

> I can.  If you are not proposing a new draft, I'm going to continue to

> push for SCON changes because they are simple, solve my problems, and
will interop.
> 
> 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.