Re: SOR/SOG in SUA

Hello,
   
  ITU-T Q.711, Table 15/Q.711 Parameters of the primitive N-COORD:
   
  Subsystem multiplicity indicator (SMI):
  N-COORD request -> n.a.
N-COORD indication -> O
N-COORD response -> n.a.
N-COORD confirm -> O
  
 
  SUA RFC seems to have a fault in Note1 of sec. 3.4.6.:
   
  "If the SMI parameter is also included
in the message, the DRST message corresponds to the
N-COORD Request and N-COORD Indication primitives,
otherwise, the DRST message correspondence to the N-COORD
Response and N-COORD Confirm primitives."

  /stanislav
   
  

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> wrote:
  Ilie,

That would be relaying. Again, the SOR and SOG are not relayed. Ever.
Move on.

--brian

Ilie Glib wrote: (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:14:29)
> Brian,
> 
> no doubts about that, but SUA Relay can translate SPC+SSN into an IP
> destination. I agree that there is no much sense in such configuration
> of redundant subsystems, but some system architectures may force it. I
> believe it is then a problem to solve for this system architectures.
> 
> Ilie
> 
> On 12/22/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Ilie,
> >
> > SOG and SOR are SCMG messages. They are not sent through an SCCP
> > relay point. They are sent between entities in an entity set by
> > point code.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Ilie Glib wrote: (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:00:17)
> > > 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 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 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 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 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
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Ilie

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

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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

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