Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Re: M3UA Notify message

From: "TOLGA ASVEREN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:23:56 +0200

Brian,

TOLGA,

I agree with John Schantz' original objection to this proposal.  The Notify
message is advisory only and that requiring a response from the ASP to a
Notify message is too drastic a change to the protocol.
[TOLGA]I agree that it is not a minor change, especially just before the
text was fozen it was not a good option. That is the reason, why the
sentence saying that ASPs SHOULD coordinate among each other number of
ACTIVE ASPs is included at the last minute. If people still don't want to
change advisory meaning of NTFY, then for starting traffic, both ASP and
SGP SHOULD wait till n ASPs are ACTIVE. So, MAY for SG should be changed to
SHOULD. This change is already done in IG.

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 04:57:01 -0700

TOLGA,

TOLGA ASVEREN wrote:                                                                 (Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:23:56)
> SHOULD. This change is already done in IG.

You cannot place a "SHOULD" on the SG's interaction with the SS7 network
(directing traffic).  That is why it says "MAY" and must remain as "MAY".

--brian

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