Re: M3UA and SUA recommendations

Siu Chai,
   
  Then in this case (when applications are in charge of controlling standby state and possible reaction to this as is normally the case) you just have to understand "xxUA layer" <-> LM interface as "upper boundary" because application logic is the one which connects to MTP or SCCP (thus triggers sending of ASP ACTIVE/INAVTIVE etc...) and no problem ;-)
   
  However, if you understand LM as a configuration entitiy of "xxUA layer" not containing any application logic then you need to extend current "upper boudary" in the specifications...
   
  One way or another "upper boundary" depends on how you look at the "LM" thus is the matter of implementation rather than specification since specifications do not tell you that "LM" does or does not contain application logic. One way or another there is nothing conceptaully in between MTP3 (SGP) and User Part (ASP) or SCCP (SGP) and SCCP-user (ASP) -> evertyhing beyond this (e.g. layering) is just the implementation not visible on the external protocols...
   
  / Stanislav Ivanovich
   
  

Siu Chai Tho <[email protected]> wrote:
    Stanislav,


    NOTIFY chapters in xxUA specifications do not define any criteria how/when/if ASP/IPSP'es (application clones) should react to received NOTIFY message reporting insufficient resources.
  [Siu Chai Tho] Please look into RFC 3868, chapter 4.3.4.5 
  "At the ASP, Layer Management is informed with an M-NOTIFY indication primitive."
   
  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

  


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
 Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.

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