Subject: RE: Use of TLV parameter formats in M3UA ver 6 REG REQ/RSP and DR EG R EQ/RSP

From: "Sidebottom, Greg [BCNR:7M01:EXCH]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:28:41 -0500

Hi Maarten,

Yes, there is a subtle change here as we now have TLV parameters grouped
within another TLV parameter.  This allows us to separate things when there
is, for example, more than one Routing Key in the Registration Request.  So
these parameters look more or less like "sub-parameters".  But these
"sub-parameters" use a consistent TLV format and the Tag values are unique
so I can't think of a problem with the approach.  Do you see a problem with
the definitions?

Thanks,

   Greg

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Maarten den Heijer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:23 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Use of TLV parameter formats in M3UA ver 6 REG REQ/RSP and
DREG R  EQ/RSP

Hi Folks

We seem to have moved away from the "standard" TLV format for parameters in
the Registration Response and De-Registration Response messages as far as
the definition of Local-RK-Identifier, Registration Status, Routing Context
and De-registration Status is concerned. Should we expect changes to these
definitions or do we live with them as is?
Regards
Maarten

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]