Re: Re: TID Label Issues - Issue #2

Lincoln,

Yes is it important to state what obviously will not work.  When something
cannot work in a interoperable and it is well known that it cannot work
in an interoperable way, even obviously cannot work in an interoperable
way, way we counter-recommend it in the IETF.

For example, it is obvious that one should ignore the value of padding bits
when receiving them and that one should set them to a known value, say zero,
when sending them (in case they are later defined).  But we state it as a
requirement with big MUST letters anyway.

Where TID labels will not work in an interoperable fashion it deserves at
least the same level of care we take for padding bits.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                           (Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:49:19)
> Brian,
> 
> Again, it seems obvious to me that TID routing will not work when using
> linked TIDs.  I don't believe it is necessary to specify this as it is
> not necessary to specify many obvious things.
> 
> Lincoln 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:47 PM
> To: Haresign Lincoln
> Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
> Subject: [Sigtran] Re: TID Label Issues - Issue #2
> 
> Lincoln,
> 
> But it needs to be stated where it is known that the mechanisms are not
> appropriate or cannot hope to acheive interoperability.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                           (Wed,
> 11 Oct 2006 16:41:31)
> > Brian,
> > 
> > Our proprietary solution rests on a layer above SUA and it not really 
> > relevant.  I agree that TID routing will not solve problems related to
> 
> > linked transactions and they need to be solve in another way.  There 
> > are many problems that can occur with M3UA users and SUA users that 
> > are not solved by the existing specifications.  That doesn't mean that
> 
> > we should not use the specifications where appropriate.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Lincoln
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:22 PM
> > To: Haresign Lincoln
> > Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: TID Label Issues - Issue #2
> > 
> > Lincoln,
> > 
> > Perhaps you could contribute your procedure to solve the issue.
> > 
> > Otherwise, it needs to be state that TID labels are inapplicable and 
> > must not be applied where linked transactions are involved.
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > 
> > Haresign Lincoln wrote:                      (Wed, 11 Oct 2006
> 16:16:29)
> > > 
> > > Since there is no RFC to solve linked transactions, right now we 
> > > must solve them on our own.  And we have.  We used TID routing with 
> > > a proprietary mechanism that ensure that the messages arrive at the 
> > > correct ASP.
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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/