RE: SE-IPSP definition

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:56 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>                    (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:28:35)
> > 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.
>
> Where does it say that DUNA cannot be sent from an IPSP?
>
> I interpret sending DUNA from an SGP to mean that it can be sent from the
> SE-IPSP acting like an SGP.
[TOLGA]That wouldn't be an IPSP, that would be an SGP. An IPSP is supposed
to work according to IPSP procedures defined in the specification.
>
> (And, DAVA and DUPU and DRST.)
>
> >
> > 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(?).
>
> While you're making all these changes, why not scrap IPSP altogether?
> It hasn't turned into a very useful part of the specification.
[TOLGA]I think SE-IPSP works fine, just the text needs to be cleaned up.
>
> --brian
>
>
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>