RE: SE-IPSP definition

Pete,

[..snip..]
> PMH - to my view, the fact that traffic mode can't be specified bothways
> makes SE probably un-usable in some situations.  But from what you
> say its too late to add anything to the RFC to deal with this.
[TOLGA]I agree with you that there is a deficiancy in the protocol regarding
this issue and needs to be fixed.




Lyndon, how do you suggest us to proceed?


a) There are people both supporting and are against to use traffic mode
bothways for SE-IPSP and I believe for both views the arguments are already
clear. How are we going to reach a conclusion? -as of right now, a full
consensus does not seem possible-

b) If we decide for the change, will it be part of the current bis document,
are we going to have a new bis document or will it be a separate WG draft?
>
> > >
> > > Concerning the inapplicability of SSNM message in IPSP
> > mode, I definately
> > > think it would help if this was explicitly stated - this has been a
> > > subject on significant discussion in some fora.
> > [TOLGA]Ken, is it possible to have the following modification:
> > In 3.1.2 Message Classes and Types:
> >   SS7 Signalling Network Management (SSNM) Messages (See Section
> >       3.4)(Note: SSNM is not used for IPSP communication)
> >
> > I believe the above change could be considered as "editorial". ;-)
>
> PMH -  that would be a good change.
>
> >
>