Re: m3ua status

Lyndon,

We recognized the need for an IPSP Extensions Draft 4 years ago.  On a
number of occasions of the last 4 years it was requested that an IPSP
Extensions Draft be made a SIGTRAN work item.  Tolga even endeavoured
to create the SG-SG draft with the participation of over 9 individuals
from as many organizations.

IMO without a formal WG work item, confusion and interoperability
nightmares surrounding IPSP will prevail.  The band-aid fix afforded by
IGs will offer little, or no, remedy.

Will the WG, WG Chair and A-D now support addition of the IPSP Extensions
work item?

Alternatively, it is not too late to call back rfc3332bis.  rfc3332bis
has not even been reviewed by the IESG yet.  IMO if issues at WGLC had
been properly addressed (lack of addressing extension drafts being one
of them) there would not be a problem now.  It is even still possible to
appeal it based on lack of technical merit: a lack which has become more
and more apparent over the last number of months.

I also notice that, while they would have assisted in clarification of
(and corrections to) the PSs, the MIBs drafts are dead.  The exercise of
creating a MIB for a protocol often flushes out its problems, both in
design and interpretation.  Also, a protocol without a MIB is not a very
useful one.  I believe that these were WG items: what has been done to
complete them?

Would the WG like to see IPSP Extensions made a WG item?

Comments?

--brian


Lyndon Ong wrote:                              (Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:41:27)
> 
>    Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
>    I  have  been  watching the mounting pile of emails on IPSP procedures
>    with some concern.
> 
>    I  think  at  this  point  it is quite difficult to make any technical
>    changes to the M3UA bis
> 
>    spec, as this is well past the review period.
> 
> 
> 
>    At  the  same time, it seems clear that there are major differences in
>    peoples' interpretations
> 
>    of  some sections in the text.  Continued discussion on the email list
>    does not seem to be leading to a
> 
>    consensus,  either.   Do  we  need  an  actual  meeting,  or some more
>    organized effort to
> 
>    reach  a  conclusion?   I'm  open to suggestions here (can be sent off
>    line if you wish).
> 
> 
> 
>    Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
>    L. Ong

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


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