RE: Lift M3UA improvements into SUA

Ilie,

In limited cases, we are seeing customer demanding SUA as the interface
to their switches.  So there is industry interest in SUA.  In the one
case where we are actively involved, M3UA would clearly work in place of
SUA and it is not clear to us why the network customer demands SUA, but
there you have it.  Sometimes the customer is always right (or you loose
the contract).

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Ilie Glib
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Lift M3UA improvements into SUA

Ilie,

Sorry to reply three times, but...

Ilie Glib wrote:
(Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:36:00)
> Hello folks,
> 
> SUA RFC lacks a lot of details, especially if compared with M3UA RFC.
> Many statements from M3UA RFC do apply to SUA as well. For instance, 
> explanations of n+k redundancy, SE and DE modes, and many more.
> 
> Is there any intention to lift those improvements made in M3UAbis into

> the SUA spec?
> 
> As far as understand there is no standardization body except for IETF 
> that accepted SUA, is there?

There is ETSI TS 102 143 which endorses SUA, but as it is not one of the
signalling bearers mentioned in 9.202, it is likely only useful for GSM
within an administrative domain or by bilateral agreement.

--brian

> 
> Is that the actual reason that SUA does not evolve to an open protocol

> that provide for interoperability?
> 
> Thank you in advance
> 
> --
> Ilie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran