Subject: [Sigtran] FW: SUA corrections

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:49:32 +0300

Hi all,

Going through some final edits of SUA before asking the IESG to
make a final consideration of SUA; I noticed a mail I did not
respond to.

This change may affect some people's implementations & I wanted to 
check if the change causes anyone trouble.

br,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ken Morneault [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 30 December, 2002 17:55
To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: SUA corrections

John,

I was looking at the latest SUA draft and found a mistake related
to modifying a registered Routing Key.

A new error code was created for this case:  "Routing Key Change
Refused".    This error code was placed under the "Error Code" text
in Section 3.9.12 instead of under the "Registration Status" in Section 
3.9.22.  This change needs to be made.

Further, the second to last paragraph in Section 4.4.1 discusses
when this error condition is hit.  Unfortunately, it recommends 
returning an error code in Registration Status that does not exist
(it should be "Routing Key Change Refused").

Finally, this paragraph indicates that the Routing Context must
be in the Routing Key parameter in the REG REQ to indicate a
"modify" operation.  However, in the description of "Routing Key"
(Section 3.10.14), there is not discussion of the possibility of 
Routing Context being an optional parameter.

Regards,

Ken

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 04:46:05 -0600

John, Ken

I agree that Ken's changes are corrections and represent what was
agreed upon regarding routing key changes.  I also stumbled on this
error in the document during implementation.  I don't think that it
is conceivable that an ERR("Routing Key Change Refused") could be
of much use and had already considered it a REG RESP.  See the thread
"M3UA: Dynamic routing Key modification" of July 2002 and my summary
note of Jul29 17:39 on that thread.

On the other hand, although on that thread it was requested by 3
individuals and opposed by none that this capability be also added
to the M3UA IG, it is has not yet been added.  Ken, please make the
same modifications to the M3UA IG per that thread.  You will find the
proposal (minus the error code) on the Jul29 17:39 thread cited above.
(I would include it, but it is a 208k message...)

--brian

John Loughney wrote:                                                                  (Mon, 05 May 2003 12:49:32)

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

---

From: Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:23:31 -0400

Brian,

I didn't check the email you cited, but I believe this change
is covered in Section 3.7 of the latest M3UA IG.

Regards,

Ken

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:35:49 -0600

Ken,

Sorry, my oversight: yes, it is covered in 3.7.

I suggest that John use 3.7 when updating the SUA document.  Also
it would be advantageous if items from the M3UA IG that have clear
concensus at this point be incorporated into SUA to avoid having to
reiterate them in an SUA IG following RFC release.  Can we say what
that list would be?  Or would that be premature?

--brian

Ken Morneault wrote:                                                                   (Mon, 05 May 2003 09:23:31)