RE: SE-IPSP definition
"Tolga Asveren" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:35 PM > To: Tolga Asveren > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition > > > Tolga, > > Tolga Asveren wrote: > (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:23:16) > > [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". ;-) > > The change is not editorial and I disagree with the change in semantics. > There is no reason why an IPSP cannot send SNMM as the RFC permitted at > WGLC. [TOLGA]As far as I can see, the current text explicitly defines that DUNA is sent from SG and SCON from SG and ASP in 3.4.1 and 3.4.4 respectively. OTOH, 1.4.6 mentions about sending SCON for IPSP case as well. So, a)For DUNA, the existing specification does not allow its usage for IPSP. b)For SCON, there is inconsistency in the document. With ASPCONG, I don't think there will be a need for SCON for IPSP case. I believe, for the sake of completiness, it can be kept in the document for now(?). > > --brian > > -- > Brian F. G. Bidulock > [email protected] > http://www.openss7.org/ >