Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Re:n+k issue

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:12:06 -0700

Hi Brian,

Hmm, I suppose you could argue that the RFC wording is not open
to interpretation, however the conditions under which
the "MAY" is exercised are at the moment not clearly 
defined.  Also the definition of "n+k" appears to be
inconsistent, in that even if the SG sends messages on the 
first active ASP, the ASP "should" start sending messages
only after "n" ASPs are active.

I read your concern, however, as to the capability at the
SG to restrict traffic to the ASPs as being OPTIONAL in the
original RFC and becoming more a "mandatory" function
in the proposed IG text.  Perhaps we can work on the text
to address that after the next issue.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:22 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Re:n+k issue

Lyndon,

Lyndon Ong wrote:                                                                   (Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:28:35)
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I did not mean to imply that you had misinterpreted anything
> (and my email says "interpreted n+k differently").  No one is
> at fault, however the definition of n+k appears to be causing
> confusion.
> 
> Right now the behavior of the SG depends on the individual
> implementation depending interpretation of the RFC.

The RFC is not open to interpretation.  The behavior is specified.
The SG activates on the first ASP, but MAY, as an OPTION, choose
to withhold until it determines that sufficient ASPs are active.
In the case that it waits, it SHOULD withhold the NTFY(AS-Active)
until such a determination is made.  There is no room for
interpretation.  We agreed on several occasions the text is clear.

> If we tighten up the definition of n+k, this should allow
> both behaviors (send on 1 active or send on N active)
> but they would be identified as different cases.

Activating on the 1st ASP is not optional.  That the SG MAY wait
for sufficient ASPs active is the OPTIONAL behavior.

If someone wants to describe this OPTIONAL behavior in the IG,
please do.  However, the current proposal and Section 3.15
presumes to make the behavior MANDATORY rather than OPTIONAL.
That is against the long line of consensus.

Please start by striking the current proposal and section 3.15 and
follow with a new proposal that clarifies, rather than changes, the
requirements.

--brian

> 
> This seems to fit at least the latest rough consensus, but
> please chime in people if you disagree.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
> 

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

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