Re: Clarification on TID

Lode,

Going back to the old way is good.  That is what I meant by scrapping
the current I-G approach.  I think that the cutoff for I-Ds was Monday.
You will probably have to wait to submit a new I-G until after the
meeting in November.

--brian

Coene, Lode wrote:                         (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:40:01)
> I'll ship out the new SUA IG tomorrow to the ietf draft editor 
> In it, you'll find the following:
> - Typos.
> - Paragraph 2.17 Filler/padding in Global title parameter: new
> - Paragraph 2.18 Inclusion of routing context in the Routing key
> parameter: new
> - Paragraph 2.8 TID label parameter:Changed: Another attempt at
> clarifying what a SG could be doing with TID label.
> - Paragraph 2.9 DRM label parameter:Changed: Another attempt at
> clarifying what a SG could be doing with DRM label.
> - Paragraph 2.10 Usage of TID and DRM label parameter:Changed:
> Another attempt at clarifying what a SG could be doing with TID and
> DRM labels.
> 
> Concerning the last 2 chnages, I've gone back to the original
> description of the TID and DRN label and added some text that would made
> it easier to interpret the parameter at the SG. Let me know what you
> think about it...
> 
> About the SCON issue: The main change seems to be that including the PC
> should no longer be mandatory. It seems that there was no consensus on
> the list yet. So I did not include it in the IG. As some folks will
> write a ID of their own on this issue, I'll wait and see what the result
> is...
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Lode Coene
> 
> Siemens COM
> atealaan 34          2200 Herentals, Belgium
> E-mail: [email protected]
> Tel: +32-14-252081
> Fax: +32-14-253212
> 

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