Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG-SG, IPSP-IPSP, SE vs. DE ...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 20:58:07 +0300

Hi Brian,

> > Why do we need to worry about PCs in IP domains?  Why do we 
> need relaying
> > into SS7?  Your problem statement is not sufficient.
> 
> I remember you defending relaying for SUA rather vehemently.
> Did you think that the SG-SG and IPSP work applied only to
> M3UA?  IPSP behavior (be it SE, DE or SG-SG) is also needed
> for SUA.

I guess I need to add <rhetorical remark> </rhetorical remark> to 
my comments.

> I believe that the arhictecural framework RFC already provides
> the problem statement for this work.  In addition, it provides
> possible solution architectures.  The solution architecture
> as presented in the RFC is SG-SG communication.

I guess I may be slow, but to me it is not clear.
 
> It is this IPSP DE and even SE concept that is a diversion from
> the agreed SIGTRAN architecture.  Talking about DE and SE is a
> utter waste of time, and has been for almost a year.

Agreed.
 
> The SG-SG approach shown in the SIGTRAN architecture RFC is
> plain, simple apparent, and direct.  If we follow you suggestion
> use the problem statement and solution architectures from the
> agreed SIGTRAN architecture, then we can proceed immediately
> with SG-SG.

To me, the SG-SG would be for tunneling over an IP network, not
terminating inside an IP network.  There may be some comonality
in the different approaches, but right now, I don't see any
consensus building in any direction.  Better to step back,
and see what the real issues are and how to solve them.  
They may be perfectly clear to you, but I do not see that this
is true to everyone else.  My suggestion is to step back,
document and the go forward.

John

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:20:33 -0500

John,

John Loughney wrote:                  (Tue, 04 Jun 2002 20:58:07)
> document and the go forward.

We had 12-14 people discussing SG-SG in a separate forum which led
to the current draft.  We have only seen Javier dissent, all others
have considered SG-SG as providing some value.  It is presented in
RFC 2719, so it already had concensus at that time.

Why waste time talking about motherhood?  Why would we not simply
proceed to complete the extension?

--brian

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