Subject: SUAv8: DAUD Message

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:29:24 -0500

Section 3.4.3 states:

   Note 1:    The destination address refers to the node that has 
              become unavailable. The Destination Address parameters 
              MUST include the Affected Point Code and MAY include the 
              SSN. When the SSN is included in the Destination Address 
              parameter, the DAUD message corresponds to the SCCP N-
              STATE primitive. When SSN is not included in the 
              Destination Address parameter, the DAUD message 
              corresponds to the SCCP N-PCSTATE primitive. 

There is no N-STATE or N-PCSTATE primitive that corresponds to DAUD.
This is bad wording.  What should be stated here is that if the SSN
is in the message the DAUD is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE primitives,
otherwise it is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE primitives.  This was raised
in Last Call and has not yet been addressed.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

---
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 20:49:24 +0300

Hi Brian,

> in Last Call and has not yet been addressed.

I thought the text did meet your concerns, but, if I modified the text to 
say (as you suggested) - if the SSN

  If the SSN is in the message the DAUD is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE
primitives,
  otherwise it is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE primitives.  

Will this be acceptable?

John

---

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:13 -0500

John,

John Loughney wrote:                                         (Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:49:24)
>   otherwise it is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE primitives.  

Yup.  Just dotting some i's and crossing some t's...

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

---