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

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 02:46:28 -0500

John,

On Tue, 04 Sep 2001, John Loughney wrote:

> 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.

Yup.

> 
> > > >   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?

Q.711, Q.712, Q.713, Q.714

> 
> 
> > > > 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.

Are you ready to address Issue 14 now?  Perhaps we should address
Issue 14 in the Issue 14 thread.

--brian

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

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