Re: Upper boundary of Adaptation Layers

Thank You very much Brian, now I 100% agree with You!
   
  I think that you pointed the very essential (!) property of all xxUA specifications:
   
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  [Brian F. G. Bidulock]
Actually, the upper boundary at the ASP is a local matter. There are no
requirements placed on the boundary. It certainly does not have to
specified to the bit.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
  This is all what I have been saying and the essential of the dispute between me and Ilie Glib!
   
  My point was -> xxUA specifications do not mandate xxUA box/layer but instead leave up to implementation to chose how should the protocol be implemented. This does not mean that xxUA specifications forbid layered apporach (i.e. a box with upper boundary) but certainly do not manadate any! xxUA specification only specify external protocl but not any boxes/layers - this is manatory everything else is implementation choice!
   
  Thank You once again for Your cooperation!
   
  with very best reagrds/ Stanislav Ivanovich
   
  

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

Ilie Glib wrote: (Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:21:57)
> Hello Brian,
> 
> I can not agree with you that SUA enables applications to use IP
> addresses. Indeed Source and Destination addresses can contain IP
> addresses, but this is an implicit impact on the xxUA users rather
> than an explicit impact. Currently section "1.6.1. Definition of the
> upper boundary" does not extend SS7 primitives. If this extension is
> wanted it shall be in the standard documents (RFCs).

Don't be absurd. 1.6.1 says that the standard SCCP/SCCP-User primitives
are supported. It does not say that nothing else is supported or
supportable. It does not say that no other primitives shall be used.
It is just the list of intentionally supported primitives.

There are, I hope you realize, more national protocol variants than just
ITU or ANSI.

> 
> Apropos Source and Destination addresses cannot contain hostnames.
> IMHO hostnames are much more usefull than IP addresses.
> 
> If it is wanted that xxUA become a true standard the content of the
> upper boundary shall be defined down to the last bit.

Actually, the upper boundary at the ASP is a local matter. There are no
requirements placed on the boundary. It certainly does not have to
specified to the bit.

> 
> what do you mean by
> > It is not necessarily true for the multiple SG as STP scenario,
> ?

I mean it is not necessarily true for the multiples SG as STP scenario.

> 
> See below for one more question.
> 
> Thank you in advance
> 
> Ilie
> On 1/9/06, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Ilie,
> >
> > This can be true for the strict backhaul scenario.
> 
> [Ilie] Do you mean SGP to ASP interface (assuming ASP does not have
> relay capability)?

No. SG to ASP interface where the Provider protocol layer (e.g., SCCP)
is located at the SG. That is, the ASP's point-code is hosted at the
SG.

--brian

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

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


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

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