| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.sigtran |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Lincoln,
I agree. I think we should use your text on this.
John
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Haresign Lincoln [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: 10 October, 2006 18:29
>To: Ong, Lyndon; [email protected]; Cullen Jennings
>Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SUA implementor's guide
>
>I'm curious about this section in the Implementor's Guide:
>
>
>2.10.3. Solution description
>
>.........
>
> Improving the clarity of the use of the TID and DRM label
>parameters:
> Redundancy - The label values are fixed length (16 bits). So why do
> we need both a "Start" and an "End" position for applying the mask?
> One or the other would seem to be enough.
>
> Simplicity - Why bother with a partial-sized mask at a specified
> "start" bit. Why not just specify a "full-sized" 32-bit
>(TID) or 23-
> bit (DRM) mask? Then we do not need a "start" and "end" position.
>
> Contradictions - Section 4.7.2.1 states that "All the ASPs
>within the
> AS _must_ specify a unique label at a fixed position in the TID or
> DRN parameter." The "must" here contradicts that fact the the TID
> and DRM parameters are listed as Optional in the ASPAC msg. Thus if
> a label is present, then all ASP's belonging to that AS, must
> specifiy a label in the ASPAC msg.
>
>
>
>Should the implementor's Guide being asking questions? I
>thought this was an attempt to clarify, not to ask questions.
>I would answer the questions as follows:
>
>
>So why do we need both a "Start" and an "End" position for
>applying the mask?
>
>You don't need to use all 16 bits. So in that case, the start
>and end give some flexibility as to how you want to use the TID.
>
>Why bother with a partial-sized mask at a specified "start"
>bit. Why not just specify a "full-sized" 32-bit (TID) or
>23-bit (DRM) mask?
>
>Again...flexibility.
>
>
>With regards to the contradictions, I imagine this could be
>clarified with something like "If the ASPs are using the TID
>parameter, then....
>
>Regards,
>Lincoln
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:22 PM
>To: [email protected]; Cullen Jennings
>Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SUA implementor's guide
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>Now that the SUA Implementor's Guide has been reissued, I'd
>like to see if people are ready to do a WG Last Call on it.
>If so, we can start this up next week.
>
>Cheers,
>
>L. Ong
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:59 PM
>To: Cullen Jennings
>Cc: [email protected]; Barry Nagelberg; Ong, Lyndon
>Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SUA implementor's guide
>
>Cullen,
>
>Cullen Jennings wrote: (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:09:00)
>>
>> More importantly, I think some of
>> this stuff if sufficiently complicated that outside a somewhat small
>> group of folks, an implementor guide will really help this work be
>> successful.
>
>Well, the implementor's guide is really a specification errata
>document and not a guide to the uninitiated. It assumes, as
>does the specification, that the reader has a very solid
>understanding of the thing being transported.
>
>--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
>