Re: SE-IPSP definition

Tolga,

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                                                 (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:41:55)
> 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 there are places where we said that the IPSP follows the SGP side of
the procedures, which would include sending SNMM.

--brian

> >
> > (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/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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