Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA outstanding issues

From: "Vats, Umesh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:29:48 -0700

Please see my comments below

Umesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Morneault [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA outstanding issues

All:

The following are open issues that have not been fully discussed
on the list.  Please provide feedback so that we can bring them
to conclusion.

Also, if you favorite open issue has been forgotten, please resend
it to the list.

Regards,

Ken

------------------------------------open
issues---------------------------------------

1)  use of broadcast mode not fully specified (use of correlation id 
not fully specified either)

This concern was addressed by Brian on the list.  If there is still 
discontent, could some specific complaints be listed or additional 
text proposed.
[UMESH] Broadcast mode assumes the use of correlation Id. But this
        linkage is never explained. Also, how exactly to use
        correlation id is not specified.
        The concept of traffic flows is also not explained in the draft.
        Details regarding this are missing in the implementor's guide.

2)  REG msg only has Service Indicator.  There is interest in also 
allowing Network Indicator (i.e. change Service Indicator field to SIO or
add NI parameter to message).

Comment on the list that NA is sufficient.  Is there a need for NI in 
REG message?

3)  There was a long thread about the use of ASP ID.  Do some folks
still feel additional explanatory text is required or can we close this
issue?
[UMESH] The scope of uniqueness of ASP Ids  is not explained. As per the 
        discussion, it came out the ASP Id is unique per ASP/SGP
        pair. This can be added in the implementor's guide. 
        In the discussion, it came out that ASP Id is not always
        optional. In some cases, it is a MUST parameter (when dynamic
        port allocation is at ASPs is used). This also needs to be
        specified. The possible uses of ASP Ids at the ASPs receiving
        them can be mentioned.

4) Handling traffic flow (i.e. destination) based Changeback (reference
ITU Q.704  Clause 6.2.1 b (i))

5) For SSNM with multiple Affected Point Code fields and with multiple 
RC fields, it should be described, how to correlate RC values to the
Affected 
Point Codes.

6)  Discrepancy between implementations regarding uniqueness
of Routing Context

Scenario  ASP sends REG Routing Key request to each SGP 
per M3UA.

   Issue 1:  Can each SGP respond with different Routing Context
                 to REG request for the same Routing Key.

   Issue 2:  Why does ASP need to send REG RK to each
                 SGP when AS/Routing Key is across SG?

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

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:59:18 -0500

Umesh,

The concept of traffic flow is explained in
draft-bidulock-sigtran-corid-00.txt

--brian

Vats, Umesh wrote:                           (Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:29:48)

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