Subject: [Sigtran] sub tlv's in a TLV

From: "Nahar,virendra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:20:22 +0530

Hi  RFC says
parameters contained in a message are defined in a Tag Length-Value
format as shown below.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |          Parameter Tag        |       Parameter Length        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  \                                                               \
  /                       Parameter Value                         /
  \                                                               \
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"Where more than one parameter is included in a message, the parameters
may be in any order, except where explicitly mandated.  A receiver
SHOULD accept the parameters in any order. "
          Does the above applies to the sub TLV's also inside a TLV
for e.g RK is having many sub TLV & say  NA is one of then so can this NA be any
where
inside RKTLV pls clarify.
   AlsoRFC has a note
Note: The Destination Point Code, Service Indicators, Originating Point
Code List and Circuit Range List parameters MAY be repeated as a
grouping within the Routing Key parameter, in the structure shown above.
     But in the very first member of this grouping NA is present which violates
above note
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Destination Point Code                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Network Appearance (optional)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Service Indicators (optional)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Originating Point Code List (optional)           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Circuit Range List (optional)               |
Pls clarify

Thanks
Nahar
--
Virendra Nahar
HCL-Technologies Ltd
Networking Systems Lab
51, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Ekkatuthangal,
Chennai - 600 097.
Phone Off : +91 44 233 4174 or +91 44 233 4181(extn:261,218)
mailto:[email-masked]
############################################################
"He who has a why for life can put with any how."
                             Frederick Nietzsche
############################################################

---

From: Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:47:32 -0400

Nahar,

The text could be improved to make it clear that the DPC, SI,
OPC list, Circuit Range list grouping is an exception to parameters
being in any order.  Further, the NA parameter should be moved
in the message definition so that it is outside the "grouped"
parameters.  My understanding is that NA is not part of the
group - do others feel differently?

Ken

At 03:20 AM 4/19/2002 +0530, Nahar,virendra wrote:
>for e.g RK is having many sub TLV & say  NA is one of then so can this NA be any where 
>     But in the very first member of this grouping NA is present which violates above note 
><mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked] 

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:20:31 -0500

Ken,

I agree, NA is not part of the group.  All the DPCs listed
correspond to the same NA.

--brian

Ken Morneault wrote:                                          (Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:47:32)

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