| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.sigtran |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Brian,
It might be quicker if an individual draft was written, could be
reviewed in SIGTRAN and submitted as an AD sponsored draft.
John
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Brian F. G. Bidulock
>Sent: 12 November, 2005 13:29
>To: Ong, Lyndon
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Sigtran] 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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sigtran mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>