RE: M3UA notify message

Brian,

I think RFC is the consensus, not the mailing threads from several years ago
and I believe RFc is pretty clear about this issue.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:11 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> I think you need to look at that mail thread, where you agreed
> to the opposite when the RFC was formed.
>
> --brian
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>    (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:44:56)
> > Brian,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:20 PM
> > > To: Tolga Asveren
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
> > >
> > >
> > > Tolga,
> > >
> > > The concensus, to which you agreed, was that each SGP maintains
> > > its own ASP state, but that AS state is shared across the SGP
> > > making up an SG.  That is, when notification of AS state is given,
> > > it is consistent for all SGP in the SG.
> > [TOLGA]I agree with the first part but disagree with the second
> part. Notify
> > procedures seem to be between ASP/SGP based on what it stands
> in the RFC. It
> > is true that SG needs to form a uniqie view of SPMC for the AS but I
> > wouldn't think this corresponds to following SGP/ASP procedures
> on a SG-wide
> > basis. I consider Notify procedures as part of the SGP/ASP relationship
> > based on 4.3.4.5.
> > >
> > > If this were not the case, each SGP would form its own SG.  Part
> > > of the fundamental purpose of an SG is to coordinate AS state,
> > > both towards the SS7 network and towards the ASPs serving an AS.
> > [TOLGA]I don't agree exactly with the last statement about SG
> coordinating
> > AS state towards ASPs. SG just aggregates the SPMC state towards SS7
> > network. Each SGP maintains its own relationship with ASPs. It
> is true that
> > SGPs, which are  part of the same SG probably would be aware of
> each others
> > ASP states and would have an internal mechanism to route
> messages between
> > themselves but this kind of state sharing is not maintaining a single AS
> > state in terms of following ASP/SGP procedures described in the
> > specification.
> > >
> > > This is, indeed, as Nitin indicates, reflected in section 1.4.1.
> > >
> > > See the thread "[M3UA] AS state maching sharing between SGPs" from
> > > May of 2001 for reference.
> > >
> > > Therefore, when the AS state changes (on this SG-wide basis), all
> > > ASPs attached to all SGP in the SG are notified.  This is why I
> > > say that ASP2 is notified by SGP2 in the original question.
> > [TOLGA]I think different. 4.3.4.5 Notify procedures speaks of
> ASP/ASP states
> > which is kept on SGPs. It also makes sense, because it is the ASP state
> > which is kept in SGP, is changing and is affecting whether
> traffic could be
> > sent/received via that SGP. that NTFY are advisory makes the
> situation less
> > drastic, but IMO changing NTFY for the state change on another
> SGP is less
> > than perfect.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>