RE: M3UA and SUA recommendations

Stanislav,

Regarding the warning in your "P.S." - I have also encountered this problem.

However I would rephrase your warning to:
"You must be <selective> in accepting <some> ideas in this forum."

But this is just like everything else in life - sometimes you get good advice, and sometimes you don't. You have to be
selective in deciding what to accept and what to ignore. Above all, try to keep a positive attitude.

Barry Nagelberg
Adax, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Stanislav Ivanovich
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:28 AM
To: SIGTRAN
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA and SUA recommendations


Siu Chai,

What is the layer if it does not have upper boundary???

see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg05708.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Brian F. G. Bidulock]
Actually, the uppper 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Are you telling me that xxUA specifications tell me that it is forbidden to use User Part commands (i.e. application
commands for M3UA) for connection to MTP and remote MTP destination (or commands owned by SCCP-user functions for
connection of SCCP subsystems and their activation/deactivation to SCCP) as ASP SM/TM commands that trigger ASP SM/TM
messages although xxUA specifications say that there is a magic xxUA layer which owns these commands???

This is certainly not true!
See also other related threads posted recently and comments from other people as well...

/ Stanislav Ivanovich

P.S: You will find that some people in one thread claim one thing and in the next thread next day the opposite thing for
ther same issue ;-)
Conclusion is -> you must be carefull when accepting anyone's ideas in this forum!





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

Siu Chai Tho wrote: (Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:47:33)
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" 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 ?

Yes.

--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!