RE: ASPSM and ASPTM example for SG having multiple SGPs

Brian,

Yes, it is definitly better to play safe and define it nicely in the
specification, then it is up to ASP what to do with it.

   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] ASPSM and ASPTM example for SG having multiple
> SGPs
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> ASPs can always rely on NTFY messages of AS state change: the SGP is
> required to send them.  OTOH, the ASP is not required to rely upon them,
> but it surely can.
>
> --brian
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>    (Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:18:57)
> > Sandeep,
> >
> > I completely agree that examples are necessary. OTOH, I think
> first we need
> > to decide what is the "best" semantics.
> >
> > I really think we should discuss with an open-mind what the NTFY/traffic
> > distribution semantics should be for multiple SGP cases. I am
> in favor of
> > having all ASPSM/ASPTM per SGP. For NTFY, I think we may have a bit more
> > flexibility, considering its advisory nature. BTW, are ASPs relying on
> > NTFY("AS State Change") notifications for any decision, it
> seems to me they
> > shouldn't but there may be some which do in practice. It could
> be also good
> > to get some feedback from more people about that.
> >
> >    Thanks,
> >    Tolga
> >
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>