Re: Contradiction in M3UA (rfc 4666) error-codes definition and suggested usage

Ravi,

Look back at the WGLC comments: the contradiction is there by
"concensus".  IMO RFC 4666 is of particularly poor technical
quality; its predecessor, RFC 3332 of much higher quality.
The best way to correct RFC 4666 is to discard it and start
again.

--brian

Ravi Sharma wrote:                                 (Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:21)
> Hi ,
> The M3UA rfc 4666 section 3.8.1 describes error code 0x19(Invalid
> Routing Context)
> and 0x1a(No Configured AS for ASP) as following:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    The "Invalid Routing Context" error is sent if a message is received
>    from a peer with an invalid (unconfigured) Routing Context value.
>    For this error, the invalid Routing Context(s) MUST be included in
>    the Error message.
> 
>    The "No Configured AS for ASP" error is sent if a message is received
>    from a peer without a Routing Context parameter and it is not known
>    by configuration data which Application Servers are referenced.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> But in section 4.3.4.3 ( ASP Active Procedures) of same rfc states the usage of
> the above mentioned error-code with a totally inverse interpretation. Following
> are the concerned paragraphs of rfc.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    - If the RC parameter is included in the ASP Active message and a
>      corresponding RK has not been previously defined (by either static
>      configuration or dynamic registration), the peer MUST respond with
>      an ERROR message with the Error Code "No configured AS for ASP".
> -
> -
> -
> -
>    - If the RC parameter is not included in the ASP Active message and
>      there are no RKs defined, the peer node SHOULD respond with and
>      ERROR message with the Error Code "Invalid Routing Context".
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Whereas, the suggested usage of these error codes in section  4.3.4.4
> (ASP Inactive
> Procedures) is very much in-line with the error-code definitions( in
> section 3.8.1).
> Following are the paragraphs from section 4.3.4.4.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       - If the received ASP Inactive message contains an RC parameter
>         that is not defined (by either static configuration or dynamic
>         registration), the SGP/IPSP MUST respond with an ERROR message
>         with the Error Code "Invalid Routing Context".
> -
> -
> -
> -
>       - If the received ASP Inactive message does not contain an RC
>         parameter and the RK is not defined (by either static
>         configuration or dynamic registration), the SGP/IPSP MUST
>         respond with an ERROR message with the Error Code "No configured
>         AS for ASP".
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think, the ASP Active Procedures defined in rfc 4666 should suggest the same
> error-codes to communicate to peer in exceptional scenarios as the ASP Inactive
> Procedure suggest for similar scenarios.
> 
> Is there any specific reason for the contradiction of error-code
> definitions and
> their suggested usage in ASP Active procedures?
> 
> With regards,
> Ravi J. Sharma
> Aricent Communications Software.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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