Subject: [Sigtran] informal discussion at ietf

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:21:06 -0800

Folks,

About 8-10 people got together while in Minneapolis to discuss future
progress
on Sigtran issues.  The results of the discussion are as follows (presented
for
information, this was an unofficial discussion and non-binding):

-- there is interest in a UA bakeoff (either IUA, M2UA, M3UA and SUA, or 
splitting off M3UA, depending on the number of interested parties), proposed
timeframe being October/November this year.  Possible locations (being
checked
for availability) are ETSI and ATG test labs.  Assuming the RFCs are
available
by that time, the goal would be to test the RFC version, plus any
corrections
identified in the implementors guides.

-- we need implementors quides for the different UAs.  Separate guides seem
to be the best way to document results from bakeoffs and other testing.
Guides
for IUA and M3UA are in progress (in fact, the IUA guide is already out,
with a
different title).  IUA guide is from Ken, M3UA guide will be from Ken and
Javier.
Work on IPSP to IPSP is expected from Tolga and Brian and may be added
to the M3UA guide (this is a guess, Tolga and Brian were unable to attend).

-- we need an Applicability Statement explaining the different UAs and how
they
relate and would be used.  Lode and Javier are working on an updated draft.

-- we currently have 2 MIBs, SCTP and M3UA, in progress.   My understanding
is that there is no requirement to have MIBs for all of the UAs, it is up to
the
level of interest - if there is a lot of interest and likelihood of
implementation for
a new MIB, then this should be pursued.

-- as far as new work items are concerned, most people were very cautious
about
adding new items to the WG, preferring to concentrate on implementing the
UAs
as they are and evaluate what extensions might be necessary.  Also, the 
implementors guides and AS will fit under the current charter as completion
of
the adaptation layer work, new items may require rechartering (not
impossible,
but would need to convince our A-Ds that there is sufficient interest).

-- one area that many people expressed interest in was looking at SG-to-SG
transport, but again with lower priority than implementation of the existing
adaptation layer specifications.

-- one of the participants, representing a carrier, suggested that we might
work
towards testing in a mixed SS7/IP environment as opposed to only in an IP
environment.  This sounded like a good step, but it was not clear how to do
this in practice.

Cheers,

L. Ong

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:43:31 -0500

Hi,

Defining SG-SG communication is already in progress in the context of IPSP
extension discussions.

    Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Ong, Lyndon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: [Sigtran] informal discussion at ietf
>
>
> Folks,
>

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:12:19 -0600

Lyndon,

I am a little confused by the statements with regard to "new work items".

There are a number of functional areas which represent technical errors
and deficiencies in the current UA specifications which were deferred to
"extension draft" in WG Last Call so that we could issue RFCs.  This
was not new work: these were extension drafts to address deficiencies that
required a significant and separable work effort.  These included IPSP,
multiple SG as STP errors and deficiencies, registration problems and
deficiencies (primarily in SUA), failover errors and deficiencies,
loadsharing and traffic mode deficiencies.  These are not new work items,
these are outstanding issues without concensus resolution.  The concensus
resolution was to defer them to "extension drafts".

Now, we are working on an IPSP extension draft.  This is not new work?
Then where will multiple SG as STP deficiencies, registration deficiencies,
failover deficiencies and traffic mode deficiencies be addressed?  In 
the Implementor's Guide (I hate that ITU term)?

What "new work" was anyone referring to?

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                                          (Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:21:06)

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