Subject: [Sigtran] m3ua IG-v01: Position of RC in the message

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:16:36 -0400

Javier,

It is said int he draft that NA should be the first parameter, if it is
present. This applies also for RC -for the same reason why NA should be the
first parameter- and it is better to mention about this in the draft.

   Tolga

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

---

From: Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:58:19 -0400

Is it still necessary to have NA/RC first since Protocol Data format (layout)
is independent of ITU/ANSI.  It seems like we can drop this requirement.

Regards,

Ken

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:45:38 -0400

Most probably it was also not needed but just preferred in the past, I think
it should be possible to parse all of the parameters and then process one of
them based on the NA value, regardless of the order of parameters in the
message. Now, layout of Protocol Data is protocol independent but Point Code
parameters are. But again, one can wait for RC parameter and investigate
Point Code parameters afterwards, even if RC is not before them in the
message. So, personally I wouldn't consider this as a strong mandatory
requirement, but then it is better also to remove the explanation for NA.

    Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Morneault [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:58 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] m3ua IG-v01: Position of RC in the message
>
>
>
>

---

From: Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:54:27 -0400

Yes, since the explanation does not make sense, the requirement for
NA to be first should be dropped and the text cleaned up.

Regards,

Ken