Subject: RE: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now Available --to be? or not to be?

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 20:27:37 -0400

Hi Folks,

As hard as it may be, let's try to keep personalities out of
the discussion.  I think that Jeff deserves some credit for
having done the work to put together a proposal for an IG,
although clearly there are some disagreements about the contents.

On the other hand, Brian as an author is strenuously defending 
his original text.  Both fine.

We need to look at the individual items in Jeff's draft and come
to some consensus about where guidance is needed for the M2PA 
implementor and where it is not.

Cheers,

Lyndon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig, Jeffrey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
Available --to be? or not to be?

Hello All,

Regarding the silence on the M2PA IG: Let's give the community some
time. 
There is no rush. I suspect that most interested parties are busy making
money and are not following the SIGTRAN list as closely as they used to,

especially considering some of the nonsense being posted.

Brian Bidulock stated:
> it represents the author's views only
> does not capture any discussions from the working group

<sigh>

Brian's two statements are false. The material is taken from posts to
the SIGTRAN list, issues identified at plugtests, issues identified
during the course of numerous inter-operability tests Tekelec has
performed, and issues identified over the course of many successful
Tekelec deployments of M2PA in customer networks worldwide. The IG draft
was reviewed and approved by a team of Tekelec SS7 engineers prior to my
submitting it to the IETF.

In a way, I was presented a catch-22 situation with the IG, since after
soliciting ideas for the IG on the list, several M2PA developers at
other companies expressed interest, but suggested that they would help
only after I submitted a draft. So here it is.

Brian Bidulock stated:
> is unsuitable in its current form as a WG item

This is not a reasonable statement, but it is consistent with his past
unreasonable statements to the effect that he would not accept any M2PA
Implementer's Guide. Brian has already expressed the view that RFC4165
is perfect. Many people, including myself, disagree with him. Why is he
considered a credible reviewer of the M2PA IG?

Brian Bidulock stated:
> I suggest that draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.txt be advanced as 
> an informational RFC.

M2PA test specs are of value, but they are no substitute for a M2PA IG.
RFC4165 describes a good protocol, but it is a protocol that can be made
better and described better, and the IG is the place to do it.

I would think that the public could benefit from those of us who have
successfully implemented and deployed M2PA in real world networks. The
M2PA IG is an excellent means for sharing the knowledge. Let's settle
the argument about the appropriateness of the vehicle and move on to
discussing the content.

Regards,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: [email-masked]; Craig, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
Available

Lyndon,

On the contrary, in my case silence means that I disagree with the
entire document.  IMHO it represents the author's views only, does not
capture any discussions from the working group, and is unsuitable in its
current form as a WG item.

OTOH, as test specs are suitable as informational RFCs, and there is, of
yet, no other industry test specification for M2PA, I suggest that
draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.txt be advanced as an informational
RFC.

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                                (Wed, 24 May 2006
10:42:57)
> 
>    Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
>    I have not seen any comments on Jeff's first draft of the M2PA IG,
> 
>    so assuming that silence means no concerns - are there objections
> 
>    to making the next version a WG draft?
> 
> 
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
>    L. Ong
>      _________________________________________________________________
> 
>    From: Craig, Jeffrey [mailto:[email-masked]]
>    Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:38 PM
>    To: [email-masked]
>    Subject: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
Available
> 
>    Hello All,
> 
> 
> 
>    The initial version of the M2PA Implementer's Guide is now
available.
[1]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.
>    txt
>    Regards,
>    Jeff
> References
>    1.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.txt

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

--
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: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:11:25 -0700

Hi, It's your friendly neighborhood AD. You might think I totally  
ignore this group but that's not quite true. I watch, and it seems  
like work is happening. I don't see how I can help the work in any  
way and it does seem to be moving along, so I don't do anything. I  
suspect this is fine with the WG and it's fine with me too. However,  
if things come up where you think I can help, or can help find  
someone else that can help, well don't forget I am a resource you can  
use. I doubt there is anything I can do to help here - two people  
passionately putting forward what they think is the best path is all  
normal and good.

Cullen