Subject: [Sigtran] Re: Suggested New Test Cases for draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-02.ps

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:13:12 -0400

Hello Brian,

>> 1. Receive message having invalid SCTP payload (e.g. not 5).
> Kind of a useless test if you ask me, but I can add it.

I'm okay either way. I was merely trying to cover the various
M2PA-specific message content faults.

>> 2. Receive message having unsupported M2PA version.
>> 3. Receive message having unsupported M2PA class.
>> 4. Receive message having unsupported M2PA type.
>> 5. Receive message having M2PA and SCTP length mismatch.
>> 7. Receive link status message having invalid length.

>These could be added to the unexpected message sequences in the
>existing tests.

Sounds good to me.

>> 6. Receive user data message of greater than (273+1+16=) 290 bytes.
>M2PA does not restrict user data messages to these limits.  M2PA
>permits the MTP3b 3094 or even higher lengths.

You're right. Scratch this one.

>> 8. Verify LSR is sent periodically until LSR is received or OOS.
>LSR is not sent periodically in M2PA.

M2PA v6, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence:
"...and send Link Status Ready messages to its peer at interval
Status_Interval."

> 9. Verify LSB is sent periodically until busy clears.
> 10.Verify LSPO is sent periodically until PO clears.
>It is not a requirement to send LSB, LSPO periodically (only a
>recommendation).  Anyway, there is no period specified in the M2PA
>draft upon which to establish a test.  Perhasps these lines from the
>draft should be struck.  Either the recommendation should be struck
>from M2PA, or M2PA must provide a period.

I agree. That's why I was harping about the M2PA 'rate' timers
some time ago. My preference is that M2PA keep the recommendation,
and also provide periods. Note that MTP2 T5 is the Busy interval.

Regards,

Jeff

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]> on 09/18/2002 07:15:00 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:    [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:    Re: Suggested New Test Cases for
       draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-02.ps

Jeffrey,

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, [email-masked] wrote:

> Hello Brian,
>
> Suggested New Test Cases for draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-02.ps
>
> 1. Receive message having invalid SCTP payload (e.g. not 5).

I take it you mean not 5 and not 0.  How would this test case
proceed?  Something along these lines:

    PT                                            IUT
    Link In Service - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Link In Service

                      MSG  [PPI != 5 && != 0]
                   ---------------------------->

   (1)  The test begins with the PT and IUT in the in service
        state.

   (2)  Send an SCTP message with PPI not equal to 5 or 0 to the IUT.

   (3)  Verify that the link stays in service.

Kind of a useless test if you ask me, but I can add it.

> 2. Receive message having unsupported M2PA version.
> 3. Receive message having unsupported M2PA class.
> 4. Receive message having unsupported M2PA type.
> 5. Receive message having M2PA and SCTP length mismatch.

> 7. Receive link status message having invalid length.

These could be added to the unexpected message sequences in the
existing tests.

> 6. Receive user data message of greater than (273+1+16=) 290 bytes.

M2PA does not restrict user data messages to these limits.  M2PA
permits the MTP3b 3094 or even higher lengths.

> 8. Verify LSR is sent periodically until LSR is received or OOS.

LSR is not sent periodically in M2PA.

> 9. Verify LSB is sent periodically until busy clears.
> 10.Verify LSPO is sent periodically until PO clears.

It is not a requirement to send LSB, LSPO periodically (only a
recommendation).  Anyway, there is no period specified in the M2PA
draft upon which to establish a test.  Perhasps these lines from the
draft should be struck.  Either the recommendation should be struck
from M2PA, or M2PA must provide a period.

--brian

> Regards,
> Jeff

--
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 ¦

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:32:24 -0600

Jeffrey,

I'm glad the test spec can flush out these issues.

Comments below...

[email-masked] wrote:           (Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:13:12)
> "...and send Link Status Ready messages to its peer at interval

Hmmm.  And Page 30....

"Status_Interval - implementation dependent."

> and also provide periods. Note that MTP2 T5 is the Busy interval.

My preference is that they are struck.  The reason for striking
is that sending these at an interval serves no purpose whatsoever
that I can think of.  Can you think of a reason to send any of
these periodically?  This is SCTP after all and not a lossy link.

--brian

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