Re: Upper boundary of Adaptation Layers

Hello Brian,

On 1/9/06, 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.

[Ilie] Therefore an implementation of SUA Layer in may not have any
other primitives than SCCP/SCCP-User primitives. Is this correct?

>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.

[Ilie] This was just a poetical exaggeration.

I interpret your statement above, that it is an implementation matter
whether other than  SCCP/SCCP-User primitives are introduced or not.
By the way are there any standardized SCCP/SUA (M3UA) user
applications/protocols that use other primitives that those mentioned
in 1.6.1?
I have not heard of any.
My opinion is that it is not possible to standardize an xxUA-User
/Application (which uses an extended  service as compared to
SCCP/MTP3) without having the SUA/M3UA upper boundary well defined, at
the level the ITU-T defines SCCP-User primitives, or alternatively
this new standard of the application shall refine its lower boundary.
Do you agree?

With the current definition of the xxUA upper boundary all User
Applications will rely on the definitions in the SS7 (section 1.6.1 in
the RFCs).
If some vendors will implement extensions to the primitives in 1.6.1,
those will be most probably due to internal system architecture.

Regards

--
Ilie