RE: IUA / Layer Management boundary
"Ken Morneault \(kmorneau\)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <542F2F9C2CDE6B40A775125727674ECA0232BBB9@xmb-rtp-209.amer.cisco.com> |
Sergey, Yes, RFC4233 should be consistent with the other RFCs. Regards, Ken ________________________________ From: Sergey Mikhailov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:43 AM To: SIGTRAN Subject: [Sigtran] IUA / Layer Management boundary Hi, section 4.3.3.2 of RFC 4233 mentions M-ASP_Down indication primitive, which is not explicitly defined in Section 1.6.4 (Definition of IUA/Layer-Management Boundary). I think such indications are quite reasonable to be employed at SG. So it seems 1.6.4 lacks for not only M-ASP_Down indication, but M-ASP_ACTIVE, M-ASP_INACTIVE, M-AS_ACTIVE and M-AS_INACTIVE indications as well, like those defined in RFC 4666 and RFC 3868. Any suggestions? Best regards, Sergey Mikhailov. _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran