Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4666 (2518)

Hi,


We plan to implement both the RFCs and we were in thought, why the
parameter values were different for SUA and M3UA as the parameters
functionality happens to be same.

Can you please elaborate your comment?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Suyash Karmarkar

-----Original Message-----
From: David Laight [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:24 PM
To: RFC Errata System; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Karmarkar Suyash
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4666 (2518)

Is someone having us on ????
The suggested change will completely break interworking between systems.

	David 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: 14 September 2010 11:54
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: [Sigtran] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4666 (2518)
> 
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4666,
> "Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part 3 (MTP3) - 
> User Adaptation Layer (M3UA)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4666&eid=2518
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Suyash Karmarkar <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: 3.2.
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> 3.2. Variable-Length Parameter Format
> 
> M3UA-Specific parameters. These TLV parameters are specific to the
> M3UA protocol:
> 
> Registration Result                               0x0208
> Deregistration Result                             0x0209
> Local Routing Key Identifier                      0x020a
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 3.2. Variable-Length Parameter Format
> 
> Common Parameters. These TLV parameters are common across the
> different adaptation layers:
> 
> Registration Result                 0x0014,
> Deregistration Result               0x0015,
> Local Routing Key Identifier        0x0018,
> 
> Notes
> -----
> As the above three parameters mentioned are used for the same 
> purpose in RFC 3868 and in RFC 4666. So the above parameters 
> in RFC 4666 Section 3.2, the M3UA-Specific parameters can be 
> considered to move them into the common parameters section 
> 3.2 of RFC 4666 with the above sepecified values.
> 
> The advantage could be, for one who implements both SUA & 
> M3UA can use the same encoding and decoding mechanisms/code 
> for both the implementations.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC4666 (draft-ietf-sigtran-rfc3332bis-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message 
> Transfer Part 3 (MTP3) - User Adaptation Layer (M3UA)
> Publication Date    : September 2006
> Author(s)           : K. Morneault, Ed., J. Pastor-Balbas, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Signaling Transport
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>