Re: M3UA and SUA recommendations
Siu Chai Tho <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Brian, "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> wrote: > [Stanislav Ivanovich] What specifications do tell you is how should > signalling processes behave on the external protocol and what is the > functionality the prcesses should contain. Internal structure of > signalling processes is irrelevant for specifications. > > > > [Siu Chai Tho]I feel that you have misunderstood my question. I was > trying to reassure that there are boundaries of a layer defined as > mentioned in chapter 1.6 of RFC 3868 and also in chapter 3.1 RFC 2719. > I understand that implementations can do whatever they like and are > not forced to use layers. However, what is the purpose of using the > word layer when there is no layer intended ? What would you call it then? We refer to all of these UA as SS7-User Adaptation Layers. You don't like the word 'layer'? (You will find it on every page.) [Siu Chai Tho] Sorry if I express myself wrong. I understood Stanislav's answer in a way that a UA would not be layer definition, but only definition of external behaviour. I think of UAs as defined protocol layers (with boundaries as defined in chapter 1.6) and that it's current best practise to implement layers with the defined boundaries. Is this true ? Thank you, Joe Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran