Re: Traffic handling modes compatibility

Brian,

Thank you very much this clarification.
Now I've got confidence on the issue.

Sergey Mikhailov.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
To: "Sergey Mikhailov" <[email protected]>
Cc: "SIGTRAN" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Traffic handling modes compatibility


> Sergey,
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Sergey Mikhailov wrote:
>
>>    If we accept your explanation, then it is unclear: what was
>>    the reason of specifying 'SHOULD NOT' rather than 'MUST
>>    NOT' in Section 3.7.1?
>
> It is not so hard to conceive of an SG that could support mixed
> modes: there is just little current support for it in the protocol.
> We did not say that an implementation MUST NOT do a thing if it is
> conceivable that it can achieve it with some effort: we instead
> said SHOULD NOT.
>
> The following drafts offer proposals to support mixed modes in
> the protocol:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-sigtran-loadsel-03.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-sigtran-loadgrp-03.txt
>
> The above were developed because there was interest at one point
> in supporting mixed modes and there were some that felt it could
> be achieved even without protocol support.
>
> --brian
>
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> [email protected]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
>                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
>                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
>