Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Silent changes to V5UA draft 04 before moving to RF C ?

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:26:45 -0800

Hi Pascal,

I think the confusion here is that V5UA progressed to WG approval
some time ago and it is only recently that these tag issues have
come up (of course they should have come up earlier, but that is
hindsight).

Eva rightly sent out a message to the WG list with the changes.
I believe that the intent of the changes is beneficial to all,
including any folks with previous implementations.  Hopefully
people will be able to make the changes without serious 
difficulty.

It sounds like what you would like is for Eva to release another
version with the changes in it so that you can see the full 
impact, and then have a more formal comment period.  Would that
help you?

Cheers,

L. Ong

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Bouveron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:00 AM
To: Eva Weilandt; [email-masked]
Cc: Alain CHAMPENOIS
Subject: [Sigtran] Silent changes to V5UA draft 04 before moving to RFC
?

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.

Best regards / Meilleures salutations
Pascal Bouveron
=============================================
www.netbricks.com
Netbricks - Provence - FRANCE
Tel: (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 77 -- Fax:  (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 71
=============================================

----- 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,

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
Netbricks - Provence - FRANCE
Tel: (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 77 -- Fax:  (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 71
=============================================

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

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

---

From: "Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:08:37 +0100

Hello,

As Brian says, drafts are working group documents.
And as such, they are meant to be criticized by the working group community,
which is a good way to rapidly improve the protocol and make it a fairly
stable and supported protocol in the end, ie when it becomes an RFC.

My point was that the draft 04, which was approved as "Proposed standard" by
the IESG back in november 2003, was about to move to RFC status, but at the
same time, the RFC document would include major changes which were not
announced to the working group.
And that is what desappointed me.
These protocols are meant to be implemented by vendors some day  (like us,
but also Nortel and others), and therefore there needs to be full
transparency on the decisions that are taken to modify the documents.

The changes i suggested for V5UA (Message Class and Parameter Tags) were
motivated by the fact that all the UAs should be seen as the same family of
protocols, and therefore there should be an overall consistency between the
different documents.
This simply makes life easier to everybody, and allowing implementations to
handle multiple UAs with the same UA "core".

M2UA and M3UA have overcome several changes to make them consistent (error
code values, etc) while they were still drafts, and once they had moved to
RFC status.
But these changes where largely discussed on the mailing list, and that's
fine to me because everybody is made aware of the propositions, and can
therefore give their point of view, and everybody wins in the end.

Calling this modified document "draft-05" rather than "RFCxxxx" would be
better in my opinion, although these proposed changes will probably make the
V5UA spec much more stable in the future.
Then we can move it to RFC with a high probability that it will remain
stable, and therefore allow companies to have a strong confidence in it.
And that is the purpose of an RFC, correct ?

Now i'm happy that Eva has clearly stated the list of changes to the draft
document.
I agree with these changes.

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:46:46 -0700

Pascal,

Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks) wrote:                                                  (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:08:37)

> handle multiple UAs with the same UA "core".

You can give up on that.  I tried to push in that direction several years
ago, however, each UA is unique.  The "common" procedures are not common and
the "common" parameters do not align either.

If this is of concern to you, I suggest you get involved earlier in the
process: (several years earlier) see the thread

  "SUA09, M3UA-10, M2UA-11, RFC2057: Common parameters." December 30, 2001

for the general attitutde of the editors and chair towards the "unified UA
theory."

> code values, etc) while they were still drafts, and once they had moved to

See the above cited thread for the inconsistencies that were not addressed
at draft and were not addressed before RFC either.

> therefore give their point of view, and everybody wins in the end.

In fact they did not receive much discussion: aside from myself, the editors
and the chair, there were three or four others (rarely) in the discussions.
I don't see your name on the thread.

> And that is the purpose of an RFC, correct ?

That is the purpose of a "Standard", however, the document will only be a
"Proposed Standard".  It has many changes to suffer from the experience of
implementation.

--brian

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

---

From: "Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:45:49 +0100

Brian,

The fact is that in the past two years significant efforts were made to push
towards consistency over UAs.
For instance, M3UA drafts from 2000/2001 (draft-02 for instance) were really
"early" drafts, with some fields not even being described as full Parameters
(no Tag/Length for instance).
But all this was changed thanks to guys like you.
I haven't had a look at M2PA yet, but i can tell that IUA, M2UA and M3UA do
not suffer inconsistency anymore, and it is pretty straightforward to
implement a "UA core" which suits well all these UAs (i wrote one!).

There is little to be done to achieve consistency with V5UA as well, and
that is exactly what I proposed to Eva, who detailed all changes that will
be part of the next draft -- or RFC.

If the future V5UA RFC needs changes, we can still move to those
"Implementor's Guides" anyway...

BTW: i posted a remark about the format of the IGs back in october 2003,
saying that full documents would be a lot easier to read and understand than
simply listing the incremental changes.
People seemed to agree with me on this point.
But it looks like nothing was done yet in that direction...
Lyndon, how do we proceed here ?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>; "Eva Weilandt"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Michael Tuexen
(Sigtran)" <[email-masked]>; "Alain CHAMPENOIS"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Silent changes to V5UA draft 04 before moving to RFC
?

| Pascal,
|
| Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks) wrote:
(Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:08:37)
| > Hello,
| >
| > As Brian says, drafts are working group documents.
| > And as such, they are meant to be criticized by the working group
community,
| > which is a good way to rapidly improve the protocol and make it a fairly
| > stable and supported protocol in the end, ie when it becomes an RFC.
| >
| > My point was that the draft 04, which was approved as "Proposed
standard" by
| > the IESG back in november 2003, was about to move to RFC status, but at
the
| > same time, the RFC document would include major changes which were not
| > announced to the working group.
| > And that is what desappointed me.
| > These protocols are meant to be implemented by vendors some day  (like
us,
| > but also Nortel and others), and therefore there needs to be full
| > transparency on the decisions that are taken to modify the documents.
| >
| > The changes i suggested for V5UA (Message Class and Parameter Tags) were
| > motivated by the fact that all the UAs should be seen as the same family
of
| > protocols, and therefore there should be an overall consistency between
the
| > different documents.
|
| > This simply makes life easier to everybody, and allowing implementations
to
| > handle multiple UAs with the same UA "core".
|
| You can give up on that.  I tried to push in that direction several years
| ago, however, each UA is unique.  The "common" procedures are not common
and
| the "common" parameters do not align either.
|
| If this is of concern to you, I suggest you get involved earlier in the
| process: (several years earlier) see the thread
|
|   "SUA09, M3UA-10, M2UA-11, RFC2057: Common parameters." December 30, 2001
|
| for the general attitutde of the editors and chair towards the "unified UA
| theory."
|
| >
| > M2UA and M3UA have overcome several changes to make them consistent
(error
| > code values, etc) while they were still drafts, and once they had moved
to
| > RFC status.
|
| See the above cited thread for the inconsistencies that were not addressed
| at draft and were not addressed before RFC either.
|
|
| > But these changes where largely discussed on the mailing list, and
that's
| > fine to me because everybody is made aware of the propositions, and can
| > therefore give their point of view, and everybody wins in the end.
|
| In fact they did not receive much discussion: aside from myself, the
editors
| and the chair, there were three or four others (rarely) in the
discussions.
| I don't see your name on the thread.
|
| >
| > Calling this modified document "draft-05" rather than "RFCxxxx" would be
| > better in my opinion, although these proposed changes will probably make
the
| > V5UA spec much more stable in the future.
| > Then we can move it to RFC with a high probability that it will remain
| > stable, and therefore allow companies to have a strong confidence in it.
| > And that is the purpose of an RFC, correct ?
|
| That is the purpose of a "Standard", however, the document will only be a
| "Proposed Standard".  It has many changes to suffer from the experience of
| implementation.
|
| --brian
|
| >
| > Now i'm happy that Eva has clearly stated the list of changes to the
draft
| > document.
| > I agree with these changes.
| >
| > Best regards / Meilleures salutations
| > Pascal Bouveron
| > =============================================
| > www.netbricks.com
| > Netbricks - Provence - FRANCE
| > Tel: (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 77 -- Fax:  (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 71
| > =============================================
| >
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > Sigtran mailing list
| > [email-masked]
| > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
|
| -- 
| Brian F. G. Bidulock
| [email-masked]
| http://www.openss7.org/