Subject: [Sigtran] M2PA v10 - comments on M2PA draft version 9

From: Tom George <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:32:02 -0500

Comments on M2PA draft version 9.
Tom George
10/16/2003

Here is my list of comments on M2PA draft version 9 and how they were
incorporated into version 10. For the most part, they are arranged by
the thread from the SIGTRAN list. The date/name/subject identify the
beginning of the thread.

01. 07/11/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - T1
     Editorial".

     LS Ready is not always sent at end of proving. Clarify this.

     A: I changed the last 2 paragraphs of 4.1.3.

02. 07/12/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment" and
     "FW: [Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment".

     A: In 4.1.3, changed reference to Q.2140.

        Changed section 4 to say that both ends must follow the same
        MTP2 standard.

03. 07/12/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - T6".

     A: Several changes made to section 4.1.5:

        While in receive congestion, M2PA does not ack messages. It
        buffers them.

        Clarified paragraph about T6 and T7.

        In last paragraph, changed "T6" to "between LS Busy and LS Busy
        Ended" since T6 does not always run in Busy.

04. 07/12/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - RPO".

     Section 4.1.4. The side in LPO can continue sending messages in
     M2PA. So the side in RPO should continue receiving and acking
     incoming messages.

     A: Updated section 4.1.4 to allow for this.

05. 07/14/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - FSN".

     If FSN is out of order, M2PA should discard the message as in
     MTP2.

     A: I corrected this in section 4.2.1 Sending and receiving
     messages.

06. 07/14/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - TTC".

     Change JT-Q704 "Retrieval Request and FSNC request" to "Retrieval
     Request" to match terminology in the standard.

     A: In 4.2.3, changed JT-Q704 to JT-Q703.

        Updated text to distinguish between
           - Retrieval Request, and
           - Retrieval Request and FSNC

07. 07/14/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment -
     JT-Q703 nit pick".

     PRI format is in JT-Q703, not JT-Q704.

     A: In 9.1, added reference to JT-Q703.

        In 2.3.1, added sentence about PRI with reference to JT-Q703.

08. 07/14/03 Brian Bidulock "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - LI nit
     pick".

     Explanation about LI octet is unnecessary. Just define PRI field.

     A: I replaced this part of 2.3.1 with Brian's suggested text.

09. 07/16/03 Andrew Booth "[Sigtran] M2PA last call comment - ANSI
     primitives for LPO".

     Mention ANSI terminology.

     A: I did not want to do this. Use Q.703 terminology, and let the
     reader substitute the corresponding terms.

10. 07/21/03 Gaiser Franz "[Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - LPO" and
     "AW: [Sigtran] M2PA Last Call Comment - LPO".

     A: In 4.1.4, I clarified that the LS PR message's BSN is set to
     last FSN received from peer.

11. 08/04/03 Nitin Vairagare "[Sigtran] M2PA Timers". Should there be
     a section on M2PA timers?

     A: This information is inherited from the M2PA standards. No need
     to repeat it in M2PA. No change to the draft is needed.

12. 09/0/03 Tom George "M2PA alignment without proving (was: [Sigtran]
     Sigtran Plugtest - DAY 1)". A question from the plugtest. Why is
     there an option of alignment without proving?

     A: In case someone wants an M2PA that works like Q.2210.

13. 09/03/03 Rohit Raghav "[Sigtran] Queries on M2PA". Several
     questions.

     A: No changes to the draft are needed.

14. 09/04/03 Andrew Booth "[Sigtran] Misc M2PA questions".

     A: No changes to the M2PA draft are needed. But see item 17 below.

15. 09/05/03 Ken Morneault "[Sigtran] Sigtran Plugtest - DAY
     2-5". Questions that came up at the plugtest.

     A: No changes to the M2PA draft are needed.

16. 09/17/03 Javier Kim "[Sigtran] M2PA MSU_ACK frequency issue".

     A: In 4.2.1, text was change to be more specific than to ack
     "promptly".

17. 09/25/03 Jeffrey Craig "[Sigtran] (M2PA) LSPO and LSPR sent on
     stream 1 and LSPR used to re-synch resolves PO issue?".

     A: The procedure was revised to put LS PO, LS PR, and LSR on
     stream 1.

=====================================================================

-- 
* Tom George       PB7-24001 (near B-21)      [email-masked]  *
* 972-519-3168   Intranet:  http://www.ssd.usa.alcatel.com/~tgeorge/  *
*   I actively disclaim speaking for Alcatel.  I do not purport to    *
*   advertise or represent its position, operations, or activities.   *

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

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:44:37 -0700

Tom,

Thanks very much for the hard work!  Let's all take a look
over version 10 and see if we can agree to move this on to
IESG review.  I know many people are impatient to get this
to closure.

Please send email with any concerns over sending this to
IESG by Wednesday October 22nd, after that I plan to send
official notification to our A-Ds and the IESG secretary.

Editorial comments can be logged and addressed during IESG
review or RFC editing :o)

Cheers,

L. Ong