Re: [Sigtran] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3331 (1425)

RFC,

There is nothing the matter with the diagram or text.

All that this change would accomplish would be making the description
for the Signalling Data Terminal Identifier field be the same as the
description for the Signalling Data Link Identifier field, which would
then result in two descriptions for SDLI and none for SDTI.

--brian

On Fri, 16 May 2008, RFC Errata System wrote:

> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3331,
> "Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part 2 (MTP2) - User Adaptation Layer".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/errata_search.php?rfc=3331&eid=1425
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
> 
> Section: 3.3.4.1,p.53
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> a)
> |     The SDT Identifier is a 32-bit unsigned value which may only be
>       significant to 12 or 14 bits depending on the SS7 variant which is
>       supported by the MTP Level 3 at the ASP.  Insignificant SDT
>       Identifier bits are coded 0.
> 
> b)
> |     The SDL Identifier is a 32-bit unsigned value which may only be
>       significant to 12 or 14 bits depending on the SS7 variant which
>       is supported by the MTP Level 3 at the ASP.  Insignificant SDLI
>       bits are coded 0.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> a)
> |     The SDT Identifier is a 16-bit unsigned value which may only be
>       significant to 12 or 14 bits depending on the SS7 variant which is
>       supported by the MTP Level 3 at the ASP.  Insignificant SDT
>       Identifier bits are coded 0.
> 
> b)
> |     The SDL Identifier is a 16-bit unsigned value which may only be
>       significant to 12 or 14 bits depending on the SS7 variant which
>       is supported by the MTP Level 3 at the ASP.  Insignificant SDLI
>       bits are coded 0.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> In both cases, the field width "32-bit" in the text does not match
> the parameter breakdown in the immediately preceding artwork.
> The above corrections are based on the assumption that the figures
> are correct and the text is in error.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3331 (draft-ietf-sigtran-m2ua-15)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part 2 (MTP2) - User Adaptation Layer
> Publication Date    : September 2002
> Author(s)           : K. Morneault, R. Dantu, G. Sidebottom, B. Bidulock, J. Heitz
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Legacy
> Area                : Legacy
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ 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 ¦
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran