Re: [Sigtran] SUA v16: TID and DRM labels

["Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[e-mail]>]

John,

What about removal?

--brian

John Loughney wrote:                                                                  (Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:21:09)
> Barry,
> 
> One concern I have about making this change is that we had a
> WG last call on the draft.  Brian raised the point, but there
> wasn't much support for his proposal at the time.  We've had
> a few bake-offs & a few implementations have been made.  I
> don't know the best procedure for fixing this. Perhaps if someone
> had a proposal and got strong support from the WG, something
> might be done, but the IESG generally frowns upon things like 
> that.
> 
> John
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
> > ext Barry Nagelberg
> > Sent: 19 February, 2004 15:53
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SUA v16: TID and DRM labels
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It is not good enough to simply state in the draft that the "Label
> > procedures are OPTIONAL.".
> > 
> > As I noted earlier, there is no mechanism through which the 
> > SGP can indicate
> > to the ASP that it doesn't support the
> > TID Label parameter in the ASPAC message (there is no "Unsupported
> > parameter" error code).
> > 
> > So when an ASP implementation _does_ send the TID and/or DRM 
> > labels to an
> > SGP that does not support them, we will be in 
> > "non-interoperability hell".
> > The ASP will assume that the SGP is supporting the labels, 
> > while in reality
> > the SGP will not be supporting them. The ASP will receive 
> > transaction IDs
> > that it does not expect.
> > 
> > These procedures must either be fixed or removed. Why are we 
> > rushing to push
> > through a flawed draft?
> > 
> > Barry Nagelberg
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:57 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SUA v16: TID and DRM labels
> > >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > John Loughney wrote:
> > >                     (Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:11:08)
> > > > Hi Brian,
> > > >
> > > > > If you look back to the thread "SUA-09: SCCP 
> > Connections and TCAP
> > > > > Transactions" from Dec 2001/Jan 2002, you will find that at that
> > > > > "late date" it was too late to remove or fix the 
> > labels.  In that
> > > > > thread there was a proposal for a working solution.  
> > The draft was
> > > > > advanced to IESG LC Feb 2002.  Now, two years later, it 
> > is neither
> > > > > fixed nor removed, and it is still a late date.  At 
> > this rate, expect
> > > > > corrections some time in 2006, if, of course, it is not 
> > still too
> > > > > late by then ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > I am concerned, however, that the approach is not 
> > clearly marked as
> > > > > optional.  Which it should be and was always intended 
> > to be.  That
> > > > > change can certainly be made before SUA goes out the 
> > door (unless
> > > > > the authors have been stripped ala M3UA).
> > > >
> > > > If you want to send text and get support, I can probably 
> > make the text
> > > > change - if the text change is not too substantial.
> > > >
> > > > Delays due to IESG issues are beyond my control.
> > >
> > > Proposed text addition: "Label procedures are OPTIONAL."
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > >
> > > > John
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[e-mail]
http://www.openss7.org/

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