Subject: [Sigtran] m3ua status

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:41:27 -0500

Hi Folks,
 
I have been watching the mounting pile of emails on IPSP procedures with
some concern.
I think at this point it is quite difficult to make any technical
changes to the M3UA bis
spec, as this is well past the review period.
 
At the same time, it seems clear that there are major differences in
peoples' interpretations
of some sections in the text.  Continued discussion on the email list
does not seem to be leading to a
consensus, either.  Do we need an actual meeting, or some more organized
effort to 
reach a conclusion?  I'm open to suggestions here (can be sent off line
if you wish).
 
Thanks,
 
L. Ong
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:28:53 -0700

Lyndon,

We recognized the need for an IPSP Extensions Draft 4 years ago.  On a
number of occasions of the last 4 years it was requested that an IPSP
Extensions Draft be made a SIGTRAN work item.  Tolga even endeavoured
to create the SG-SG draft with the participation of over 9 individuals
from as many organizations.

IMO without a formal WG work item, confusion and interoperability
nightmares surrounding IPSP will prevail.  The band-aid fix afforded by
IGs will offer little, or no, remedy.

Will the WG, WG Chair and A-D now support addition of the IPSP Extensions
work item?

Alternatively, it is not too late to call back rfc3332bis.  rfc3332bis
has not even been reviewed by the IESG yet.  IMO if issues at WGLC had
been properly addressed (lack of addressing extension drafts being one
of them) there would not be a problem now.  It is even still possible to
appeal it based on lack of technical merit: a lack which has become more
and more apparent over the last number of months.

I also notice that, while they would have assisted in clarification of
(and corrections to) the PSs, the MIBs drafts are dead.  The exercise of
creating a MIB for a protocol often flushes out its problems, both in
design and interpretation.  Also, a protocol without a MIB is not a very
useful one.  I believe that these were WG items: what has been done to
complete them?

Would the WG like to see IPSP Extensions made a WG item?

Comments?

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                              (Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:41:27)
> 
>    Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
>    I  have  been  watching the mounting pile of emails on IPSP procedures
>    with some concern.
> 
>    consensus,  either.   Do  we  need  an  actual  meeting,  or some more
>    organized effort to
> 
>    reach  a  conclusion?   I'm  open to suggestions here (can be sent off
>    line if you wish).
> 
> 
> 
>    Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
>    L. Ong

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

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:07:24 -0500

My 2 cents about this and related issues:

What I think from technical point of view:
1) IMO, SE-IPSP model is a true peer-to-peer model. I don't see any
architectural deficiencies but OTOH I think existing documentation is
unsatisfactory.

2) I don't think DE-IPSP model is a good approach.

3) I think SG-SG model is useful, because it provides relaying capability.
It can be used for IPSP-like communication between IP-resident peers as
well.

Now, what can be done:

a) A draft clarifying IPSP usage as defined by the current document. This
should be a self-sufficient document, should not change something
architecturally but should include all details which are discussed in this
list throughout the years -the current document unfortunately doesn't-.

b) Revisiting SG-SG draft. I will submit a new version soon -in 5-10 days-
still as a non-WG draft. There has been some off-list comments about it
during the last 2 years or so, but architecturally it won't be any different
than the version Brian posted the links to.

Where I really am not sure what to do is, do we want to provide multiple
choices for IPSP-model? Can we have significant changes and if yes to which
extent? We already have SE-IPSP and DE-IPSP, and as indicated above, SG-SG
could serve the same purpose as well. More choices may be confusing for
people. My personal preference would be -considering both technical and
non-technical aspects of the problem-:

i-  Keep SE-IPSP but not DE-IPSP.
ii- Define SG-SG, by emphasizing its use for relaying rather than IPSP-kind
of operation.

    Thanks,
    Tolga
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Ong, Lyndon
  Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 5:41 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: [Sigtran] m3ua status

  Hi Folks,

  I have been watching the mounting pile of emails on IPSP procedures with
some concern.
  I think at this point it is quite difficult to make any technical changes
to the M3UA bis
  spec, as this is well past the review period.

  At the same time, it seems clear that there are major differences in
peoples' interpretations
  of some sections in the text.  Continued discussion on the email list does
not seem to be leading to a
  consensus, either.  Do we need an actual meeting, or some more organized
effort to
  reach a conclusion?  I'm open to suggestions here (can be sent off line if
you wish).

  Thanks,

  L. Ong