Re: Ambiguity between 3332 and 4446?
"Adnan Hasnain Alam" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Chaitra, If I take your example where 4666-side has sent the ASP-Inactive message and 3332-side does not think that it needs to send the ASP Inactive message. In such a case, the 4666-side will think that 3332-side is still active for traffic. Any DATA sent from 4666-side to 3332-side will result in an ERROR. The layer manager at the 4666-side will have all the information it needs to mark 3332-side as inactive (for the correct RC). All the best, Adnan On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > Chaitra, > > There is no requirement for backward compatability between RFCs, and none is provided. > > --brian > > Ramaiah, Chaitra M (STSD) wrote: (Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:22:11) >> Hi Brian, >> >> My apologies with the number goof up. I agree that the RFC 3332 is obsolete, but in spite of >> that are we not supposed to be compatible with the preceding RFCs assuming that not everyone >> would have upgraded to the latest RFCs? The successor RFC would probably have more features and >> errata addressed from the predecessor, but still it should be backward compatible I feel. >> >> Please let me know whether you agree/disagree with me. >> >> Regards, >> Chaitra > > -- > Brian F. G. Bidulock > [email protected] > http://www.openss7.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran >