Re: M3UA and SUA recommendations
Siu Chai Tho <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Stanislav, Stanislav Ivanovich <[email protected]> wrote: Layering is a architectural design pattern and thus only applicable to implementations. Nevertheless it's an important architectural choice to choose layers. [...] [Stanislav Ivanovich] Nonsense! Layering or not layering is certainly not visible on the external xxUA protocols since it is implementation matter. For example I have two M3UA ASP implementations: 1) One applies layered approach where traffic control appplication + supporting user part functions are kept intact while all the AS concepts are put within a layer called "M3UA ASP" which is managed separately. 2) In the second non-layered approach I decide to make modifications to 3 SW components of traffic control application + 2 SW components of user part functions because by looking into product manaulas, descriptions, sequence diagrams (i.e. not in xxUA specifications but instead in my implementation documents) I found that it is easier to make these modifications than to introduce a separate "M3UA ASP" layer which shall be separately controlled by its own management (commands)... However both (!) of my ASP implementations when connected to SGP behave strictly 100% in compliance with ASP-SGP protocol as defined in M3UA specification! [Siu Chai Tho] I think you are questioning the usefulness of protocol layers in specifications. I didn't wanted to broaden the discussion to that level. I was merely trying to understand if the UAs define a layer or not. So far I think I received a positive answer. 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