Subject: SUAv8: 4.1.1 editorials

From: "Gradischnig, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:27:58 -0500

John,

while one could debate endlessly about the internal layer modeling, 4.1.1
still needs a little cleaning up:

1. The title has nothing to do with the text. Should it be "... Primitives
from the SCCP"?
2. There is no section 1.4.2.1 in the document as paragraph 3 makes you
believe
3. SUA is informed via PC-State indications but then receives an
MTP-TRANSFER request primitive? To be consistent should it not be an e.g.
N-UNIDATA indication?

Alternatively, lets not use service primitive terminology when talking about
the SCCP/SUA internal interface.

Klaus

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:04:15 +0300

Hi Klaus,

> 1. The title has nothing to do with the text. Should it be 
> "... Primitives from the SCCP"?

I agree.

> 2. There is no section 1.4.2.1 in the document as paragraph 3 
> makes you believe

I'll clean that up.

> MTP-TRANSFER request primitive? To be consistent should it 
> not be an e.g. N-UNIDATA indication?
> 
> Alternatively, lets not use service primitive terminology 
> when talking about the SCCP/SUA internal interface.

Which would you prefer?

John

---

---

From: "Gradischnig, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:20:18 -0500

Hi John,

pls see below...

Klaus

> > when talking about the SCCP/SUA internal interface.

Don't care as long as it is logical/consistent ;-) Changing it to xxx-DATA
indication might be easier?

---

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:08:44 +0300

Hi Klaus,

> Don't care as long as it is logical/consistent ;-) Changing 
> it to xxx-DATA indication might be easier?

Got it.

John

---