Subject: Re: [SUA issue 17] IPSP cases.

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:26:50 -0500

Klaus,

Are you saying that there is no distincition and that an IPSP
must always be treated as an ASP or an SGP?  If so, which and
when?

The current draft distinguishes between cases.  What changes
would you make to the draft to remove what Gery calls an
"artificial" distinction.  What are we to do with all those
subsections titled "IPSP Considerations"?  Are all those
subsections "artificial" and unnecessary?  Do those subsections
confuse matters more than they clarify?  If all they do is
sow confusion, what are they doing in the draft?

--brian

Gradischnig, Klaus wrote:                            (Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:00:22)
> Gery,
> 
> I second that - specially the first 2 sentences.
> 
> Klaus
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Verwimp Gery [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: August 28, 2001 8:57 AM
> > To: sigtran
> > Subject: RE: [SUA issue 17] IPSP cases.
> > 
> > 
> > Brian,
> > 
> > The for SUA somewhat artificial distinction between "peer-to-peer" and
> > "backhaul" case is something I'd like to avoid. This kind of modelling
> > creates more problems than it can clarify.
> > 

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

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