Subject: Re: queries:draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt

From: "Bruce" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:26:10 +0530

to add to this:

does the following mentioned in the draft....seem to make sense to anyone
placing an ISD call somewhere:::

International Segment (IS):
        To be coded according to ITU-T recommendation T.50. The
        International Segment (IS) field provides a 3 character ISO
        3166 Geographic/Political Country Code. The country code is
        based on the three-character uppercase alphabetic ISO 3166
        Country Code (e.g., USA, FRA)..

        The National Segment (NS) field consists of two sub-fields: the
        ITU Carrier Code followed by a Unique Access Point Code. The
        ITU Carrier Code is a code assigned to a network
        operator/service provider, maintained by the ITU-T
        Telecommunication Service Bureau in association with
        Recommendation M.1400. This code shall consist of 1-6 left-
        justified characters, alphabetic, or leading alphabetic with
        trailing numeric. The unique access point code is a matter for
        the organization to which the country code and ITU carrier code
        have been assigned, provided that uniqueness is guaranteed.
        This code shall consist of 6-11 characters, with trailing NULL,
        completing the 12-character National Segment

are these parameters to be ignored? is ietf planning to redefine these
parameters? and their values?

to the writers:
why is all this being mentioned under an "ASON" draft?? why not under a
signalling draft?

and the TLV and point 3 below still holds...

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:05 AM
Subject: queries:draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt

> hello,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.
> txt
>
>
>
> what is:
>
> 1: defination of a call (SIP WG exists in ietf, but this query is specific
> to a "PCM"  person's area.......)
> 2: if its a generalised protocol limited to TLV based specs,  why is it
> limited to CRLDP?
> 3. elaborating point 2, if one doesnt have a standard for signalling
> protocol as of date, how does the signalling protocol even matter to the
> this draft except for conflicts in number space...why cant one realise the
> basic algorithm proposed in the draft
>
>
>
> -B
>
>