Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4666 (2518)

Hi Brain,

I agree with your comments entirely. Thanks a lot for the explanation.

Regards
Suyash Karmarkar

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:36 AM
To: Karmarkar Suyash
Cc: David Laight; RFC Errata System; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4666 (2518)

Karmarkar,

Their purpose might appear the same, but their internals and
functionality is rather different.  M3UA registration and keys are
routing keys, whereas SUA's are entries in an address mapping
function.  Even if one made the parameter tags the same, the value
portion and the operations that need to be performed on them are
quite different.

We did manage to rationalize and make common parameter tags that
made more sense (like routing context).

If you look back in the sigtran mail archives you will see that this
very issue was discussed last in Jul19 2006.

Take a look at my response to that note under the subject:
"Are RKM parameters common between adaptation layers?" from
19 Jul 2006 00:13:31 -0600 and you will see reference to the
discussion ladders on common parameters back to 2001.

The short story: the current parameter tag values represent
concensus of the WG after lengthly deliberations, discussion and
input from many quarters.

I think that the proper thing to do is to withdraw the errata.

--brian


Karmarkar Suyash wrote:                  (Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:48)
> 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?
> 

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