Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Sigtran Plugtest M2UA - Day 4

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:46:00 -0500

Ken,

Regarding m2ua - I agree that the quoted text from section 3.3.2.7 (the 
description of the ASP-ACTIVE msg) does indeed explicitly cover the 
"partial list of Interface Identifiers" scenario. I raised this issue at 
the plugtest because Christophe Anzile and I couldn't find the procedure 
to follow in section 4.3.4.3 (ASP Active Procedures).

However, I am alarmed that, judging from your response below, you feel as 
though this is an "OK" resolution to the problem. In fact, the 
"resolution" is actually the problem.

This is a perfect illustration of how hard it is to use the m2ua (and 
m3ua) RFCs. There are bits and pieces of related information sprinkled 
around the RFC in many different sections, making an overall understanding 
of the protocol extremely difficult. The msg description section, which 
should contain only a description of the fields of the msg (and not the 
procedures involved in handling the msg), contains the text that you 
quoted below, as well as other "procedural" details.

If and when we get the chance to update the RFC, I hope that we can 
resolve some of these issues. I am available to help in this effort.

Barry Nagelberg

Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
 11/07/2002 12:30 PM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Sigtran] Sigtran Plugtest SUA/M3UA/M2UA/IUA - Day 4

Below are a list of issues raised during the Day 4 wrap-up.

M3UA
----------

1.  Location of NA in messages

The RFC is unclear about the location of NA in messages.  In Section
3.3.1, the text says the NA "must" be the first parameter in the message
if it is included.  In the description of other messages with NA, Section 
3.3.1 
is referenced in regards to NA but is not shown first in the message.

If there is a decision for NA to always be first in each message in which
it appears, the text (message formats) need to be changed to reflect
this.

Recommendation:  A non-binding vote was taken and there were more
people in favor of changing the text to say NA "MUST" be first in each
message in which it appears.

2.  There was a question about the following flow:

      ASP1   ------ASP Active ----------->   SGP1
                 <-----ASP Act Ack----------
                  --------Error------------------->

In this case, ASP1 sends an Error in response to the ASP Act
Ack so there is a potential for the ASP and SGP to be out of sync
regarding state.  Should ASP1 just resend the ASP Active or should
it take action to re-sync with SGP1 first (i.e. send an ASP Inactive
and wait for an ASP Inactive Ack before re-sending the ASP Active
message).

3.  Question if DUNA(*) is supported

General consensus was that since there is no text saying it is not
allowed, it is supported.  However, there were doubts noted about it's
usefulness.

M2UA
----------

1.  Partial List of Interface Identifiers in ASP Active message

There was a question about how the SGP should handle the
receipt of a partial list of Interface Identifiers in the ASP Active 
message.  Concern that the text in Section 4.3.4.3 was not
clear enough.

However, there is text in Section 3.3.2.7 that addresses this
situation:

   If no Interface Identifiers are included, the message is for all
   provisioned Interface Identifiers within the AS(s) in which the ASP
   is provisioned.  If only a subset of Interface Identifiers for an AS
   are included, the ASP is noted as Active for all the Interface
   Identifiers provisioned for that AS.

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran