Re: RC & NA doubt

Aditya,

Read this:

> "Because an AS can only appear in one Network Appearance, the Network
> Appearance parameter is not  required in the ASP Active message."

as this:

| Because an AS can only appear in one (or all) Network Appearance(s),
| the Network Appearance parameter is not required in the ASP Active
| message.

--brian


Aditya Sehgal wrote:                                                (Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:50:33)
> Brian,
> I am not sure I follow. Can you explain this in a better way?
> 
> Thanks for you time
> 
> Aditya Sehgal
> 
> On Nov 16, 2007 4:26 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Aditya,
> >
> > Aditya Sehgal wrote:                                                (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:34:15)
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Section 3.6.1 of RFC M3UA 4666 states
> > >
> > > " If the Network Appearance is not specified and the Routing Key
> > > applies to all Network Appearances, then this Routing Key MUST be the
> > > only
> > >   one registered for the association; that is, Routing Context is
> > > implied, and DATA and SSNM messages are discriminated on Network
> > >   Appearance rather than on Routing Context.  Where Network Appearance
> > > is not specified and there is only one Network
> > >   Appearance, then Network Appearance is implied"
> > >
> > > It says Routing Key can apply to al Network Apperances. [An example
> > > scenario anyone??]
> > >
> > > However, further down in Section 3.7.1 while explaining ASP ACTIVE
> > > message, in Routing Context RFC states
> > > "Because an AS can only appear in one Network Appearance, the Network
> > > Appearance parameter is not  required in the ASP Active message."
> > >
> > > and the AS is suppose to service a Routing Key.
> > >
> > > Isnt the RFC implying that a Routing Key can span multiple Network
> > > Apperances and later on implying the opposite. Please correct if there
> > > is a gap in my understanding?
> >
> > Because Network Appearance is an abstract concept, there need be no
> > difference between "one" an "all".  (Said another way: there are no
> > rules or constraints on the cardinality of network appearances.)
> >
> > But I agree the text is confusing.  It is ironic that it was added
> > to the RFC to "clarify" the situation.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Don't take life too seriously....Nobody comes out alive anyway
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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