Subject: RE: SUA Update was: Due date for SUA version 8 (or will it be RFC ?)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:40:26 +0300

Hi Ian,

Good to hear from you - I guess you have been quite busy with other
work as you haven't been active in Sigtran lately.

> What happened to the long standing agreement in Sigtran that
> the three primary adaptation modules will be released first ? I have
> always understood that to mean that we get IUA, M3UA and M2UA
> into Proposed RFC status first.

I agree that it is unfortunate that progress on all of the UAs have
been quite slow.  I think that all of us would like to see all
of the work items on our charter completed and the working group
would go dormant.

> My interpretation seems to be confirmed by the minutes from
> Pittsburgh 2000 "SUA work is proceeding along, and will be treated
> with lower priority compared to the IUA, M2UA and M3UA" and 
> Minneapolis 2001 (Sections 1 and 3).

My interpretation is the same.  IUA is done.  M2UA seems ready for 
IESG last call.  M3UA needs to be re-issued.  SUA needs to be
re-issued as well.  As a side comment, I have been working with
the authors of M2UA & M3UA on progressing both of those UAs.  I
have submitted a far bit of text to solve some outstanding issues
with those protocols.
 
> Maybe you could outline to me what has changed from these official
> agreements that would allow a secondary adaptation module to
> "jump the queue".

Right now, there is no queue - SIGTRAN is definately not suffering
from head-of-line blocking.  The working group is motivated to see
that we complete the charter.  I don't think that the authors of
M2UA & M3UA feel that SUA has been slowing down there work. Anyhow,
M3UA should be ready quite soon & I see no conflict between M3UA
and SUA.

Finally, there is no official IETF procedure which enforces a 
strict ordering of which documents may procede, so I feel
that this is a non-issue.

best regards,
John

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

---

From: Ian Rytina <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:54:11 +1000

Hi John,

I don't have any problem with your good work in progressing M2UA
and M3UA (and SUA of course). I know a lot people appreciate
your efforts.

I fully agree that there are no official IETF procedures which enforce
a strict ordering of which documents may procede. That is
exactly why I refer to the minutes of the Sigtran meetings so that
we can get individual WG agreements on the ordering of the work
so that it progresses in the best and most efficient way. And I believe
we should stick to those WG agreements, not change them without
thinking very hard about why they should change.

My understanding of SUA is that it is essentially M3UA+SCCP, i.e. SUA
is a superset of M3UA. That is why it makes very good sense to get M3UA
out of the way before embarking on finalising SUA. Standards are all about
evolution, not revolution - why run before you can walk ?

/Ian.

[email-masked] wrote:

> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]

---

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:03:42 +0300

Hi Ian,

> and M3UA (and SUA of course). I know a lot people appreciate

Thanks.
 
> so that it progresses in the best and most efficient way. And 
> I believe we should stick to those WG agreements, not change them without

My understanding of the agreement was that IUA, M2UA and M3UA had
higher priority & I still agree with that.  However, I at the
current time, I do not see any problems with allowing SUA to 
progress - again, I do not think that SIGTRAN is or will suffer
from any 'head of line blocking' as the UAs go forward.

> is a superset of M3UA. That is why it makes very good sense 
> to get M3UA out of the way before embarking on finalising SUA. 
> Standards are all about evolution, not revolution - why run before 
> you can walk ?

Actually, all of the UAs (IUA, M2UA, M3UA, SUA & V5UA) build on a
common architecture.  SUA in my mind, is not M3UA + SCCP.  If it
were, I'd be doing my job rather poorly.  SUA is providing
transport of SCCP-users over SCTP, using the common UA architecture.
M3UA is providing transport of MTP3-users over SCTP, using
the common UA architecture.  

best regards,
John

---

---

From: Verwimp Gery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:39:56 +0200

Hi Ian,

I agree with John, SUA evolves at it's own speed without affecting M3UA/M2UA
work. And many issues are common (ASP management, REG and SSNM stuff) so if
M3UA makes progress, so does SUA (and vice versa). I don't see any reason to
slow down SUA, do you ?

Regards,

____________________________

Gery Verwimp
> SIEMENS ATEA
> ICN D CS D5
> Tel. : +32 14 25 3424
Fax : +32 14 25 3212
mailto:[email-masked]
____________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: woensdag 3 oktober 2001 9:04
To: sigtran
Subject: RE: SUA Update was: Due date for SUA version 8 (or will it be
RFC ?)

Hi Ian,

Thanks.

best regards,
John

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

---

---

From: Ian Rytina <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:41:59 +1000

Hi Verwimp,

I am not talking about slowing down SUA, I am talking about the
best way to finish ALL of the Sigtran work items in the most efficient
(and previously agreed) way. John stated long ago when he asked
for SUA to be a work item that he did not in any way want SUA to
delay the progress of any of the other adaptation modules.
Having helped formulate the very first "Issues List" on M3UA in
Santa Barbara in 1999, and sat through all of the other
adaptation module meetings at subsequent IETF meetings, I can
only conclude that the existance of the secondary modules has
slowed down the progress of the primary adaptation modules - if
SUA had not existed, then a lot more time and brain power in the
WG could have been focussed on M3UA and it would have been
out of the door by now.

The existence of all of these alternative modules has also used
up a lot of my time explaining things to other assorted standards bodies,
and also internally within my company, time which could have been
more constructively used in actually working on the modules
themselves - and I am sure I not the only one in the world who has
suffered from this problem.

The quantity of the work the group took on has caused this dilution
of focus, that is why we had to put in some form of loose timeplan
agreements when we took on new work.

This was reason behind the agreements in the first place. It seems
that some people have forgotten this. The people concerned in the
WG should honour these agreements.

/Ian

---

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:43:47 -0500

Ian,

You have made so many contributions to M3UA and SUA, I can see
how you have been spread so thin.  Perhaps if you focussed your
contributions on just, say, M3UA, things would progress a little
faster. ;)

--brian

Ian Rytina wrote:                          (Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:41:59)

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

---