Re: M3UA: Routing Key and Network Appearance?

Tolga,

I brought it up at WGLC May 7, 2004 "M3UA-v02 Last Call Comment: NA in RK",
but nobody listened (and the editor refused to make changes).  At that time
I believe you sided the other way.

Do we now take the time to correct a document that could have (and IMO should
have) been corrected before it was published?

--brian


Tolga Asveren wrote:                               (Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:29:11)
> Ilie,
> 
> I don't know what was the purpose to update the explanation for Network
> Appearence in 3.6.1. (not that I think the RFC3332 version was complete and
> clear) and don't think the current text makes sense and I see no reason why
> there should be an exception to "RKs can't span SPMCs" rule. One can really
> try to provide that type of "flexibility", i.e. allowing traffic for more
> than one network on the same association without using routing keys but IMO
> it just is confusing and can create interoperability problems and what's the
> big deal with using RCs? I think the type of operation described in 3.6.1
> Network Appearence (not to be confused with not using RC in messages if
> association is used for traffic for only a single RK) simply is unnecessary
> and is against the principle of M3UA being an interface mimicing
> MTP3/MTP3-User Part interface.
> 
> Just stick to the "RK's can't span SPMC" principle and everything is clear
> again ;-) (I agree with you though, that the text in 3.6.1 is confusing and
> IMHO even wrong).
> 
>    Thanks,
>    Tolga
> 

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