Subject: [Sigtran] AW: V5UA Parameter Tags conflict with M3UA Tags

From: "Eva Weilandt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:19:51 -0000

Hi Pascal,
 
we will change the message tags together with the message class for the RFC
version of V5UA. This will hopefully happen soon. If you need the new tags
in the meantime, let me know.
 
Thanks for pointing this out. It is always helpful if someone proof-read
your documents :-)
 
Eva

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: February 2, 2004 11:28 AM
An: Weilandt, Eva [FRIED:NRA11:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Betreff: V5UA Parameter Tags conflict with M3UA Tags

Hello,
 
I found other conflicts between V5UA and other UAs, in the Parameter Tags
definitions:
 
Tag 0x0011: "ASP Identifier" for M3UA, but "Link Status" for V5UA
Tag 0x0012: "Affected Point Code" for M3UA, but "Sa-Bit" (it actually has no
name in draft-04) for V5UA
Tag 0x0013: "Correlation Id" for M3UA, but "Error Reason" for V5UA
 
Best regards / Meilleures salutations
Pascal Bouveron
=============================================
www.netbricks.com <http://www.netbricks.com> 
Netbricks - Provence - FRANCE
Tel: (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 77 -- Fax:  (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 71
=============================================

---

From: "Pascal Bouveron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:59:45 +0100

Hello Eva,

Thanks for the confirmation about changes on the V5UA Message Class, and
Parameter Tags values.

I was wondering: i can't see any anouncement on the Sigtran mailing list
about the fact that the V5UA draft is moving to RFC soon. I saw it is now a
"proposed standard".
As i understand it, the Mailing List is the mainstream for discussions on
the evolutions of the drafts/rfc's, right ?
I'm not familiar with the RFC procedures, but i would imagine that, before a
draft can move to RFC status, it has to be stable for a while.
Which does not seem to be the case here, considering that you have decided
to change MAJOR elements of the so-called "proposed standard", and call that
an RFC, without notifying the Sigtran community thru the Mailing List.

These are major changes, as they lead to total INCOMPATIBILITY between the
draft 04 and the future RFC.
Meaning that vendors developing their V5UA right now based on draft 04 will
not be able to interop with systems based on the future RFC.

I am just a bit disappointed to see that important changes to the document
were not made public, and therefore not subject to discussion.
The good news here is that the RFC will include changes to the draft04 which
makes it move to the right direction, i.e consistency with other UAs, which
is good.

I would appreciate if you would clearly detail in the Mailing List the full
changes that you are planning to apply to V5UA draft 04 before it is
approved as a new RFC, so that the community can review them quickly.

Many thanks for your efforts.

www.netbricks.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Eva Weilandt
To: 'Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks)' ; [email-masked]'
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:19 PM
Subject: AW: V5UA Parameter Tags conflict with M3UA Tags

Hi Pascal,

Eva
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: February 2, 2004 11:28 AM
An: Weilandt, Eva [FRIED:NRA11:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Betreff: V5UA Parameter Tags conflict with M3UA Tags

Hello,

www.netbricks.com

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

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:52:19 +0100

Pascal,

there was a WG last call on the document a long time ago.

What 'important changes' are you talking about?

I do understand that the change of tags (or other numbers) breaks
interoperability, but if I'm right all these numbers are handled
by IANA and IANA looks at the documents after IESG approval. So these
numbers can change right lately. The numbers chosen by the authors
of the IDs are 'just recommendations'.

But in this concrete case the question is:

Do you prefer to keep the old numbers and therefore have them not
coherent between all adaptation layers

or

Do you prefer to change the numbers and have them coherent between
all adaptation layers?

What do others think?

Best regards
Michael

PS.: We do have similar problems with other adaptation layers: I know
      that there are M3UA versions deployed based on version 5, version 
6,
      version 7 and the RFC. And all have their 'own' tag values. 
Hopefully
      all will upgrade to the RFC version...

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:21:43 -0700

Pascal,

Pascal Bouveron wrote:                                                              (Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:59:45)
> draft 04 and the future RFC.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but:

An internet-draft is just that: a draft.  No compatibility, whether backwards
or forwards is necessary between drafts.  Implementation of a draft is for
protocol development purposes only.  A protocol is not a "Proposed Standard"
until it acheives RFC status.  Drafts are working group documents and not
intended for general implementation.

> not be able to interop with systems based on the future RFC.

That is the risk one takes by implementing a draft.

> were not made public, and therefore not subject to discussion.

Tag values are not important changes: they affect neither the design nor the
operation of the protocol.  Assignment of numbers is a matter for IANA and,
until the protocol moves to RFC, are not maintained.  Crossing the t's and
dotting the i's in this manner is fairly common practice in the RFC
development process, at least within the SIGTRAN working group.

> approved as a new RFC, so that the community can review them quickly.

That said, it makes sense to release a final draft.

--brian

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