Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M2PA V6: T7

From: Tolga Asveren <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:02:47 -0400

Brian,
 
> I don't think that M2PA should preclude the per-message 
> approach above.  The
> M2PA sender can managed its T7 timer to meet MTP3 performance 
> requirements.
> In the draft I think it is sufficient to say that a timer T7 
> SHOULD be used
> to time the excessive delay of acknowledgement in accordance 
> with MTP.  I
> would even suggest in a IMPLEMENTATION NOTE, the above 
> per-message procedure.
[TOLGA] For that paragraph I both agree and disagree. I disagree that M2PA
precludes per-message approach. To handle this case, why should there be a
protocol timer? Meeting MTP3 performance requirements is responsibility of
each node itself, for example I can have an implementation dependent timer
to do this, should it be called T7? Or I can say, my implementation does not
care about that problem and relies on the quality of IP network. So, for
example why not just say that M2PA SHOULD meet MTP3 performance
requirements? How one achieves this is belongs more to implementation in my
view. But I agree that the sentence as you suggest is also not restrictive. 
 
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:12:27 -0600

Tolga,

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                                                 (Tue, 08 Oct 2002 09:02:47)
> view. But I agree that the sentence as you suggest is also not restrictive. 

I'll take that (agree and disagree) as a "neutral".  Other comments?

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:18:43 -0600

Tolga,

M2PA needs to support more than just MTP3 function transparently: it must
also support the SS7 MIB and provide some basis for administration of its
protocol parameters.  The SS7 MIB contains T7.  Network engineers are
familiar with its effect.  No matter how you want to implement it, it
should be viewed externally as a timer with a settable value T7.  We all
agreed that there should be timer alignment between M2PA and MTP2.  You see,
M2PA's purpose is to "transport" MTP2, not to reinvent it.

--brian

---

From: "Olivier Mayor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:19:44 -0400

Hi all,

Was there a decision made on the test plan that will be used for M3UA at the
upcoming interop event at ETSI. I cannot find anything on the ETSI web site.
Do we plan to use the scenarios from the previous bakeoff? If yes does
anyone knows where to find a copy of that plan?

thank you

Olivier Mayor

IntelliNet Technologies
www.intellinet-tech.com