Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:18:00 +0300

Hi all,

>I don't see why SUA should be any different.  I can't speak 
>for the other authors, but when we wrote the SUA RFC, I never 
>considered that an ASP or SG would ever not include a point 
>code in an address.
>
>Making the point codes mandatory in address fields for all SUA 
>messages better promotes interoperability in all 
>configurations, and the miniscule expense of causing an ASP to 
>provision a single point code for an SG with only a single point code.

Just as background - there were some discussions that ASPs might not
have Point Codes, but some other work to really enable ASPs to funtion
properly without Point Codes never really materialized.  I think some
additional work would be needed to make this usable.  SGs were always 
considered to have Point Codes, in my opinion.

John

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:43:23 -0600

John,

It might be best then to leave the APC mandatory in the SCON,
particularly when one considers that not even a TC-user is spared the
use of a point code in these management primitives (Q.771/2.2.3).

I think we need, for the time being, to note in the I-G that Point
Codes are mandatory in all Addresses to or from an SG, to preclude the
interoperability difficulties of an SG or ASP underspecifying an address.
If the additional work you mention ever materializes in the future,
placing point code in addresses could later be relaxed.

--brian

John Loughney wrote:                    (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:18:00)

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