Subject: [Sigtran] Re: IPSP text - poll

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:12:19 -0500

Lyndon,

I don't think that it took an A-D charter change to address
SG to SG before.  We agreed to let the RFC go forward (on
this and other threads) with minor clarification to state
machines (which never made it into the draft: instead what
we got was Javier's vague text, but since it was so vague
and contained no requirements (no MUSTs, no SHOULDs) and
seemed to abiguously permit both SE and DE there was hardly
point to fight for its removal.  We had always discussed doing
SG-SG in extension draft, particularly to support relay
capability restricted out of the RFC to allow it to move
forward.

Now, a concern that was expressed in allowing the RFC to move
forward was that these issues and SG-SG would not be addressed.
As usual, we were assured that these things were easy enough
to do in extension draft.  So we have put a bunch of work and
thought into why SG-SG makes sense and how it can work (see
several long ladders with IPSP in the subject line from last
November).  We discussed the current draft off-line with a fair
number of participants.

It is only when we ask for it to be formalized as a WG extension
draft that one or two vocal people suddenly try to say that this
is a brand new thing, that it was never agreed, that it has no
point, that it is a poorer approach: none of which is supported
by long months of dicussion before the RFC was advanced.

There seems to be those who would like to suppress us talking
about it at all.  That doesn't seem to be the IETF way, nor
does it seem very professional.

Now, SG-SG can be done with the existing messsages.  There is
nothing in the RFC requiring SG-SG communication and there is
nothing prohibiting it.  In fact there is nothing requiring IPSP
and there is nothing prohibiting even an SG-SG approach to IPSP.
This may not suit the view of the editor that pushed it in at the
end, but the dicussion on NA/RC yeilded strong concensus that
RC (and for that matter ASPTM) wasn't necessary for peer-to-peer
(SG-SG) operation.  It most people now want to use distinct
messages (such as TAL) to acheive SG-SG rather than using the
existing message set, do you see any reason not to permit that?

Why would any already discussed extensions (all of the issues that
were deferred to extension draft in the spirit of moving an RFC
forward) be outside the charter?  I believe that they are all in
the charter: they just represent unfinished work.

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                       (Thu, 08 Nov 2001 18:37:39)
> Folks,
> 
> Boy, we've gone in a lot of directions on this one.  Can I take a poll
> to see where we are?  I'd like reactions to the following:
> 
> 1) How does an IPSP talk to an IPSP?
>    (a) sends like an SG, receives like an ASP (multiple RCs)
>    (b) sends like an SG, receives like an SG
>    (c) either one
> 
> 2) What needs to be done to the protocol?
>   (a) nothing
>   (b) something (specify what)
> 
> 3) What needs to be done to the specification?
>   (a) take out IPSP
>   (b) add model and examples of IPSP to IPSP
>   (c) add model and examples of SG to SG
>   (d) other (specify what)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lyndon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

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

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

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:15:22 -0700

whoops, forgot to copy the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ong, Lyndon 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: IPSP text - poll

Hi Brian,

I didn't say definitely that it would take a charter change,
but the A-Ds have been much more vigilant about work efforts
recently, probably due to complaints about groups overexpanding
their charters.  As it stands, I think pretty much any new
WG document needs to be at least run by the A-Ds, if it was
not identified in the original charter.  

I could see some questions coming up since this is not
interworking of SS7 to IP so much as IP to IP, but since it
would reuse M3UA I would hope it would not be a problem.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: sigtran
Subject: Re: IPSP text - poll

Lyndon,

--brian

> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:37:05 -0500

Lyndon,

> would reuse M3UA I would hope it would not be a problem.

How is SG-SG any different than IPSP in this regard?
Is not IPSP interworking IP to IP?  Certainly SG-SG
supports connection to the SS7 network which is clearly
SS7 to IP interworking.  The same cannot be said of
IPSP.

--brian

-- 
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 ¦