Subject: RE: [SUA issues 3,6,7] text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:25:39 +0300

Brian,

> > Does that mean you want it MANDATORY or remove support for 
> it in CODT?
> 
> CODT implies protocol class regardless.  As DT1, DT2 and ED can be
> ascertained from the CODT message, there is no need for protocol
> class as an optional parameter in CODT.  This is a recent development
> from the clarification of CODT for DT1, DT2, and ED use.

So Protocol Class is removed from CODT completely.

> > >   Optional in all other CL and CO messages.
> > 
> > So, it should be optional in CLDA, COREF, RELRE, RELCO, 
> RESCO, RESRE,
> > COAT, CODA, COERR?  That seems a bit much ...
> > 
> > Should a be added stating that 'This parameter is needed 
> > for decoupled  operation.'
> > 
> > It would be helpful if you would provide a good definition 
> > for 'Decoupled Operation.'
> 
> Decoupled operation (connection-oriented relay without 
> coupling) is defined in the SCCP specifications.

Reference?

> > > To support non-final GTT, sequence control must be 
> > > provided in a all CL and CO messages which do not terminate 
> > > at the peer.
> 
> 
> We can address when sequence control is included for 
> decoupled operation as part of Issue 14 if you'd like.

I'd simply like to know if the above tet was sufficient or not.
If you like to cite other places that you require text for this,
it would be helpful.

John

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