Re: (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now Available

Michael,

I agree, a test spec is not for clarification.  What it does provide,
however, is 96 crystal clear examples.  I don't believe that Jeffrey's
IG clarifies anything.  It may even muddle some points.

Issues posted here from the last interop were dealt with on the
list and by the RFC.  The last change was made at 48 hours.  There
were no items outstanding and there has not been an interop since.

If someone other else feels that there is an issue with the M2PA
protocol as expressed by the RFC, please post it and let us discuss it.

--brian

Michael Tuexen wrote:                        (Thu, 25 May 2006 11:28:17)
> Hi Lyndon,
> 
> I think it makes sense to have an IG. I think we need some
> discussion on the points in the IG on the mailing list
> to figure out if there is consensus.
> 
> I do not think that it is not enough to provide clarifications
> in test specifications. If there is a need for clarification,
> it should go into the protocol spec.
> 
> Regarding the interop experience. M2PA has been tested and
> there where some issues related to unclear text in the spec.
> That is why there are some clarifications in the IG. Unfortunately
> the Interops have changed: The first SIGTRAN interops where attended
> mostly by people aslo active on this list. The later interops
> where attended mostly by people not active on this list. So they will
> not represent interop issues here with multiple voices...
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> 
> On May 25, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> 
> > Lyndon,
> >
> > Sorry, I read through it again, and there is not one major bullet in
> > section 2 that I can agree with.  IMO they are all incorrect, out of
> > scope, unnecessary or already provided for in test specification.
> >
> > This process strike me a rather backwards: normally the WG has
> > discussion to convince the editor of an IG to include an item in  
> > the IG,
> > rather than the editor of the IG trying to convince the WG that some
> > item needs to be included.  At least this is how we have operated  
> > in the
> > past and I believe that it makes sense.  That is the easiest way to
> > ensure that the IG represents concensus within the WG.  By  
> > reversing the
> > process, the IG does not represent the concensus of the WG.
> >
> > I would gladly discuss any of these points within the WG, particularly
> > with the other authors of the RFC, but I feel that it would be a waste
> > of time to argue them with the IG's author when noone else in the  
> > WG seems
> > to care to discuss them.
> >
> > Contrary to the legal principle, silence in this case might mean
> > absence rather than consent. ;)
> >
> > What happened to moving the WG to another area?  I thought that the
> > WG items were complete...  Are you suggesting that we recharter to
> > include an M2PA-IG as a work item?  What about the SUA-IG?  Should
> > we not complete an rfc3868bis incorporating the SUA-IG or move the
> > SUA-IG to an RFC?  The SUA-IG is already a WG item and currently
> > is the only oustanding item to completing the charter.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Lyndon Ong wrote:                            (Wed, 24 May 2006  
> > 19:51:15)
> >> Ouch, I see we still have a disagreement here.  Are there any
> >> points in Jeff's document that you agree with?   Are there
> >> issues that you feel were missed in the document?
> >>
> >> Also, what are other peoples' views, esp. those that have
> >> participated in the bakeoffs?
> >>
> >> Advancing the test spec is I think a separate topic.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> L. Ong
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:40 AM
> >> To: Ong, Lyndon
> >> Cc: [email protected]; Craig, Jeffrey
> >> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
> >> Available
> >>
> >> Lyndon,
> >>
> >> On the contrary, in my case silence means that I disagree with the
> >> entire document.  IMHO it represents the author's views only, does  
> >> not
> >> capture any discussions from the working group, and is unsuitable  
> >> in its
> >> current form as a WG item.
> >>
> >> OTOH, as test specs are suitable as informational RFCs, and there  
> >> is, of
> >> yet, no other industry test specification for M2PA, I suggest that
> >> draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.txt be advanced as an  
> >> informational
> >> RFC.
> >>
> >> --brian
> >>
> >> Lyndon Ong wrote:                                (Wed, 24 May 2006
> >> 10:42:57)
> >>>
> >>>    Hi Folks,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    I have not seen any comments on Jeff's first draft of the M2PA  
> >>> IG,
> >>>
> >>>    so assuming that silence means no concerns - are there objections
> >>>
> >>>    to making the next version a WG draft?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    L. Ong
> >>>       
> >>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>    From: Craig, Jeffrey [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>>    Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:38 PM
> >>>    To: [email protected]
> >>>    Subject: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
> >>> Available
> >>>
> >>>    Hello All,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    The initial version of the M2PA Implementer's Guide is now
> >> available.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> [1]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa- 
> >> ig-00.
> >>>    txt
> >>>
> >>>    Regards,
> >>>
> >>>    Jeff
> >>>
> >>> References
> >>>
> >>>    1.
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa- 
> >>> ig-00.txt
> >>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Sigtran mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> > -- 
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/