Subject: M3UA Open Issue Update (Sept 18th)

From: Greg Sidebottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:44:08 -0400

Greetings,

As promised, here is the latest status for the open issues.  Javier and I
are shooting for an Issue 9 by the end of September.

1) Change Network Appearance semantics/format.           Status: Closed?

Options: Network Appearance = indication of the SS7 network attached at SG
or also includes the Point Code used (current definition).  Possible
re-format of Network Appearance indicating Network Id and Concerned Point
Code (=OPC?)?

Propose as closed - new definition from Javier in an e-mail of Sept 13th
seems to be accepted:

"Network Appearance - The Network Appearance is a local reference (typically
an integer) that together with an SPC uniquely identifies an SS7 node by
indicating the specific SS7 network it belongs to. It can be used to
distinguish between signaling traffic associated with different networks
being sent between the SG and the ASP over a common SCTP association. An
example scenario is where an SG appears as an element in multiple separate
national SS7 networks and the same SPC value may be reused in different
networks."

2) Add Routing Context in Data & SSNM messages.         Status: Open

Options: Add RC in Data message (delete NA as then redundant?).   Add
optional Concerned Point Code (=OPC?) and/or Routing Context in SSNM
message. (or use expanded Network Appearance semantics if agreed in Issue
1).  SSNM issue is SGs with multiple attachments (and Point Codes) in the
same Network Appearance.  DATA message issue is ease of processing at ASP.
More details in Brian's e-mail of Aug9

Agreed on adding RC as optional parameter for both Data and SSNM.  CPC in
SSNM messages then not required.  Not agreed to remove optional NA.
Proposal from Lyndon re guidelines for inclusion of NA and/or RC.  SPMC
definition clarified - SPMC is in one specific NA.

3) SSNM messages semantics at the SGP or SG level.         Status: Closed?

Options:  SSNM messages apply to each SGP (current) or SG-wide (previous).
Or define an new SGP-level message set (extension draft?)

Seems to be agreement to go back to SG semantics (per Lyndon).   Greg
reviewing e-mail discussion and current text to evaluate changes.   Agreed
to add ASPIA Ack procedure from SG to allow graceful withdrawal of SG

4) Format of Routing Label/SIO in DATA message.                Status: Open

Options: Add new Protocol Data 3 parameter or just have one choice with all
Routing Label/SIO elements parameterized.   Also an option from Barry for an
Data format without routing parameters - any support?

Still open - current poll by Lyndon of group's views.

7) Change-over / Change-back support.                 Status: Open

Need more discussion on list.  Possible technical solution from Brian using
Correlation ID but don't yet have agreement on need for this functionality.
Possible M3UA extension draft?  Issue also for SUA?

9) Change Traffic Mode to optional in REG REQ, ASP Active, ASP Active Ack
Status: Closed?

Needed to allow flexibility for future traffic modes / loadshare policies.
Some semantics outstanding (e.g., when to be included in REG REQ and ASP
Active and what values used..

Discussion on list supports Traffic mode to be optional in these message -
but some recent e-mails from Gery, John L suggest that this may not be
finalized.  Greg to take to list to finalize the exact agreement.

10) User Part Unavailable support - STP-mode, SEP Mode
Status: Open

Whether to support UPU at SG using STP model.   Also SEP model

Some recent related discussion on SUA thread but need more discussion re
M3UA.

11) IPSP cases supported or not.                     Status: Open

Proposal from Maria-Cruz to incorporate IPSP into Examples.    Brian's
comments to remove IPSP entirely.

Javier and John L have been working together on a common proposal across
M3UA and SUA  They are currently leaning toward the following:

  - change to double-ASPAC procedure for IPSP cases, clarification text on
the IPSP behaviour in the ASP-SG scenarios, include text reflecting the
current list discusssion with Amish, then review IPSP examples from
Maria-Cruz for changes.

12) REG Response Message Format                         Status: Open

Add Tags/Lengths to parameters within Registration Result parameter?  Or
clarify that Tags/Lengths not present as all sub-parameters are mandatory
and fixed length. (e-mail from Brian)

No discussion on list.  Greg to send out e-mail to initiate discussion.

13) Lining up of value assignments in UA Common parameters
Status: Open?

Lining up of values for common Reason, Traffic Mode Type and Error Code
parameters (Roland Jesske's e-mail).  John has proposed solution from SUA?

Agreed to align across ALs.  Greg to discuss with Ken M and John to ensure
alignment.   Same for message tag value alignment for common AL messages

14) Error response to DAUD for "Invalid" destination       Status:
Agreed/Open

Allow an SG to refuse to give the status of a Point Code for security
reasons.

Agreed to add error code and procedures.  Greg to make text proposal to
list.

15) Open up RK format to allow NA range, multiple DPCs etc
Status: Agreed/Open

Proposal from Maria-Cruz seems agreed but not added yet.  NA range is ruled
out in another thread.   Greg to review proposal and solicit final agreement
from list.

16) Routing Context Definition                             Status: Open

Alignment with SUA?   (see e-mail from Brian)

Javier studying and plans to make a proposal soon.

17) MTP Restart Procedures                                  Status Closed?

Text proposal in e-mail from Francois looks agreed.  Brian brought up
off-line a small issue with the mask parameter in SSNM messages - A mask
value equal to the number of bits in the DPC indicates that the entire
network appearance is affected, indicating network isolation to the ASP.
This should be changed to "equal to or greater than the number of bits to
allow an all "1s" mask.

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

---

From: "Duhoon, Rajiv" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:03:00 -0700

Hi Greg,

Few days back I tried to initiate discussion on 
issue# 12 but couldn't see any response from
anybody. I was seeking clarification on following
issues.

1) Is there any limit to the max number of routing 
   keys that can be present in single REG REQ  
   message.

2) Is there any limit to the max number of SI, SSN, 
   OPC, CIC Ranges that can be present in one single 
   routing key.

3) Can the "Status" Tag  be used for  "Registration 
   Status/ De-registration Status" in Routing key 
   registration/De-registration messages ? 

4) Will the parameters (Local-RK- Identifier, Registration 
   Status, Routing Context) in  REG RSP / DEREG RSP be 
   present with their Tag Values ? If  yes then we
   need to know the Tag value of "Registration Status/
   De-Registration Status" Parameter.If not then can
   the assumption be made that the sequence of the 
   parameters defined in the messages will be  used 
   to find out the correct parameters value.

Thanks,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Sidebottom [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:44 PM
To: sigtran
Subject: M3UA Open Issue Update (Sept 18th)

Greetings,

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

---

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:14:04 -0500

Greg,

Greg Sidebottom wrote:   (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:44:08)
> are shooting for an Issue 9 by the end of September.

Was it the intention that all these issues be addressed in Issue 9?

--brian

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

---

---

From: Greg Sidebottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:07:40 -0400

Hi Brian,

Well we can dream can't we  2;^)

Seriously, I'd agree it is a lot of work.  But we need to get a draft out
for people to look at even if not everything is closed off by then.

Cheers,

   Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
To: "sigtran" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: M3UA Open Issue Update (Sept 18th)

> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]

---