Re: SOR/SOG in SUA
Ilie Glib <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian, as consequence from your statement below, SOG and SOR cannot pass through an SG and in sequence an ASP with Relay , otherwise the SG would not know the SMI. Ilie On 12/22/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > Ilie, > > No, it is a value known to the SCCP at the SG. > > --brian > > Ilie Glib wrote: (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:56:56) > > I guess SMI in SOG shall be > > 00 (= affected SMI unknown) > > > > Ilie > > > > On 12/22/05, Ilie Glib <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Brian, > > > > > > Thank you very much for you answer. > > > According to the RFC the DRST copied in backward direction represents > > > N-COORD respose primitive (SOG message) iff SMI is not included. How > > > does SG populate SMI parameter of the SOG sent in response to SOR? > > > Although it should not be of any relevance for the requesting side, > > > the SMI parameter is mandatory in SOG. > > > > > > Ilie > > > > > > On 12/22/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ilie, > > > > > > > > Read section 3.4.6! N-COORD is an SCCP/SCCP-User primitive! > > > > > > > > --brian > > > > > > > > Ilie Glib wrote: (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:12:47) > > > > > Hello Brian, > > > > > > > > > > How an application (SCCP-User) can acknowledge the SOR via a SUA message? > > > > > Or if the application does not acknowledge SORs, what procedure > > > > > instead shall apply in the SG? > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid something is underspecified in the RFC, or I have overlooked it. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance > > > > > > > > > > Ilie > > > > > > > > > > On 12/22/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ilie, > > > > > > > > > > > > SOR/SOG is supported in the RFC with DRST message, see section 3.4.6. > > > > > > > > > > > > --brian > > > > > > > > > > > > Ilie Glib wrote: (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:17:40) > > > > > > > Hello Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for some time SUA drafts had support for SOR/SOG messages. In the RFC > > > > > > > there is no support for SOR/SOG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How Local Subsystem out-of-service Request is supported by SUA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What was the reason to remove SOR/SOG? > > > > > > > Do you think ASPTM is sufficient to deal with Local Subsystem > > > > > > > out-of-service Request? If not, how Local Subsystem out-of-service > > > > > > > Request is supported by SUA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Ilie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Sigtran mailing list > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Brian F. G. Bidulock > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://www.openss7.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilie > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Brian F. G. Bidulock > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://www.openss7.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ilie > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ilie > > -- > Brian F. G. Bidulock > [email protected] > http://www.openss7.org/ > -- Ilie