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

Mark,

Erickson, Mark wrote:                                           (Thu, 25 May 2006 11:14:53)
> 
> Brian:
> 
> Not trying to pick on anyone here, but, out of all the prominent Sigtran
> RFCs (SCTP, M3UA, SUA, M2PA and M2UA), this RFC is so well written that
> each and every detail is crystal clear - especially with a controversial
> area like PO (judging by the amount of discussion on the mailing list
> with it).

I'm glad that all you guys at Tekelec are on the same page. ;)

> 
> So, I think the need for one is pretty clear.  In fact, when the IG was
> first discussed, PO was offered as a prime item to be included.

The issues associated with resynchronization of sequence numbers raised
at the interop was address at 48 hours in the RFC.

> 
> The plugtest I attended was basically a unit test environment with a
> perfect network.  Judging from the other protocols, operational
> experience from continued deployments will uncover areas requiring
> discussion/clarification.

I agree, we should close the IG until issues arrise in the future.

> 
> If you don't agree with the list of issues as a first step, then where
> the weak/unclear areas you think are?

I don't believe that there are any weak or unclear areas in the RFC.  It I
did, I would have raised them as issues at WGLC or, as an author, would have
made changes at 48 hours.  There is certainly no glaring error in the document
discovered later that needs to be corrected.

So, likely the best approach is a combination of what you and the other Mark
suggests: as the other Mark suggests, strike all items except FSN, and as
you suggest, leave the document dormant until issues arrise from future
operational experience.  In which case there is certainly no need to make it
a WG item (and all the process that entails), particularly in the light of
the WG moving to another area.

--brian

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