Subject: RE: [Sigtran] (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

From: "Craig, Jeffrey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:32:17 -0600

Hello Brian,

> and should not be the editor's personal pet peeve list for the
specification 

Personal pet peeves? Many of the defects I listed I obtained straight
from
other's posts on the SIGTRAN listserv. I posted them as a proposal to
kickoff
discussion.

I look forward to other's comments. If the community agrees to your
strict 
definition of 'defect' and that there are no M2PA 'defects', then there
won't be
a M2PA IG. If the only 'defect' is the processor outage text, then that
is what
the M2PA IG will address and nothing else.

Regards,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Craig, Jeffrey
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

Jeffrey,

I prefer the usual delta format.

There are no defects in the document that I know of.  (I would not have
passed the RFC by 48 hours if I knew of any.)

I think all of these "clarifications" (except one for PO) are
unnecessary.  Most of these were not mentioned even in passing on the
mailing list.  The I-G should try to represent consensus, addressing
issues raised on the mailing list or from interop tests, and should not
be the editor's personal pet peeve list for the specification.

Timer values should be addressed in an AS, not in the PS.

See draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test for specific examples of procedures
if you think the RFC lacks examples.

--brian

Craig, Jeffrey wrote:                          (Wed, 11 Jan 2006
14:03:10)
> 
>    Hello All,
> 
>    As Lyndon Ong stated in a prior post, I've agreed to lead the
effort
>    in creating an M2PA Implementor's Guide. I am busy working on it,
>    but I have not yet submitted a draft. When I do submit it, it will
>    have the lovely name 'draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.txt'.
> 
>    In the meantime, I would like to kick-off discussion and solicit
ideas
>    for the following:
> 
>    * preference for IG content (delta document vs. replacement
document)
>    * specific defects and remedies
>    * clarifications
> 
>    At the bottom of this post is a memo I drafted describing my
proposals
>    for the IG, as well as the preliminary list of 'defects'. Comments
>    and questions are welcome.
> 
>    Regards,
> 
>    Jeff

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

_______________________________________________
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: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:52:55 -0700

Jeffrey,

Perhaps you could start by formulating at least a problem statement for
each item that you think presents a problem.  It might also be an idea
to consult the authors of the RFC.

Maybe start with PO and Figure 16.  What problem is there with the text
or the example?  I don't see any problem.

Also, I don't believe that there are any outstanding problems with the
document at all.

--brian

Craig, Jeffrey wrote:                   (Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:32:17)

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