RE: M3UA notify message

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:42 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Obviously the RFC is not so clear or we would not be discussing it.
>
> Where the RFC is unclear or contradictatory, it is normal to look
> back to the consensus on the mailing list at the time that a specific
> issue such as this was resolved.
>
> The agreement was as in section 1.4.1 that AS state (not just SPMC view)
> SHOULD be coordinated across the SGP making up an SG.  An on that point
> the RFC is clear in section 1.4.1.
[TOLGA]Coordinating ASP/AS states to create the unique SPMC view is
something different than using that coordinated state for M3UA ASP/SGP
procedures on each SGP. Otherwise I am not claiming that coordination is not
necessary.
>
> The later statement that the AS state is maintained in the M3UA layer
> at the SGP is just an error resulting from the s/SG/SGP/g that Greg
> did on the document about M3UA 07.  It should, of course, say that
> the AS state is maintained in the M3UA layer at the SG.
[TOLGA]I disagree with your this statement.
>
> And it is this to which you agreed in the mail thread from years ago.
>
> --brian
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>    (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:11:16)
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>