Re: [M3UA] Action on Receipt of ERROR (Sporton, Simon, VF-Group)

Hi Arif,

Thanks for your reply... as you will see in my previous mail to Michael,
it's the inconsistency of implementation that surprises me... In the
case we found there is a clear difference between SGP and ASP (not a
Vodafone HLR by the way)... the difference is so vast it would appear to
be a difference in error handling philosophy between the two vendors.

Any guidance the RFC could give for this may bring the implementation
closer together.

Regards

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: arif khan [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 17 March 2011 09:16
To: mosbah abdelkader
Cc: Sporton, Simon, VF-Group; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] [M3UA] Action on Receipt of ERROR (Sporton,
Simon, VF-Group)

Hi All,

Error handling in the any software including sigtran or other telecom
stack/applications layers are not robust or correctly implemented and
thats the reason it is vendor dependent or we can categorise it as
implementation dependent.

But yes the RFC should have exact guidlines for the error msgs also to
avoid effort in investigation and troubleshooting the problems when it
comes into the live NW.

Poor error handling and missing guidlines in RFC both gives programmers
to put work-around and otherway solution.

Yes Simon....I understand your concern with VF legacy HLR some years
back....and I had gone through the similar chaos when VF node and othe
NW vendor interop happned.

Vendors are focusing more on feartures and performation but they
neverthing about how the crash,error ,memory and tracing are provided.

Regards
-arif