Subject: [Sigtran] M2PA - changes in version 11

From: Tom George <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:27:03 -0600

List of comments on M2PA draft version 10.
Tom George
01/29/04

Here is my list of comments on M2PA draft version 10 and how they were
incorporated into version 11. For the most part, they are arranged by
the thread from the SIGTRAN list. The date/name/subject identify the
beginning of the thread.

01. 10/21/03 New email address for Hanns.

     A: Done.

02. 10/21/03 Schwarzbauer Hanns Juergen "[Sigtran] M2PA v10 - comments
     on M2PA draft version 9".

     Dates for some of the ITU references are wrong. Need to add
     implementor's guides.

     A: Updated some references. Added Implementors Guides.

03. 10/22/03 Andrew Booth "[Sigtran] M2PA 10: PO editorial".

     Forgot to mention the LS Ready sent by the LPO end.

     A: Added paragraph stating that the end formerly in LPO sends LS
     Ready.

04. 11/05/03 Frank Bevacqua "Question on M2PA Timer Values". Private
     email.

     In section 4, add statement that the corresponding applicable
     timer value defaults and ranges specified for the applicable MTP2
     standard should be used for the M2PA timers.

     A: This is implied by the text, but I added a paragraph in section
     4 making it explicit.

05. 12/01/03 Tom George "[Sigtran] M2PA registered port number".

     In 4.1.2, is it necessary to use the registered port number?

     A: Text is OK, says Jon Peterson. Not necessary, but a good idea.

06. 12/24/03 Franck Boesch "[Sigtran] SIGTRAN - M2PA draft 10 - T7
     timer at Busy End".

     Clarify text about T7?

     A: No. This came up in the earlier T7 discussion. We do not want
     to imply an implementation.

07. 01/08/04 Franz Gaiser "[Sigtran] M2PA draft 10 - Processor
     outage". Question about Flush and Continue.

     A: No change needed to the document. Just do what MTP2 does.

08. 01/12/04 Franck Boesch "[Sigtran] M2PA - draft 10 - Link Status
     Ready received during T4 period".

     A: No change needed to the document. Just do what MTP2 does.

09. 01/06/04 Comments from Jon Peterson (AD).

     A:

        a. Section 1.1, last paragraph: "SHOULD" is changed to
	  "should", since this is a statement of the motivation for
	  M2PA rather than a list of requirements.

        b. Point code sharing? No. No change needed to the document.

        c. 1.6.2: Are FISUs sent? No. Some explanation was added about
	  the protocols used in Figure 2 in 1.5.

        d. 3.1: Associating replaces Associate.

        e. 6.1: Security requirements strengthened to MUST. Reference
	  updated for [Security].

        f. 7.2: Added paragraph to 7.2 about the registry. Added
	  section 7.2.4 to list defined values.

-- 
* Tom George       PB7-24001 (near B-21)      [email-masked]  *
* 972-519-3168   Intranet:  http://www.ssd.usa.alcatel.com/~tgeorge/  *
*   I actively disclaim speaking for Alcatel.  I do not purport to    *
*   advertise or represent its position, operations, or activities.   *

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