Subject: [Sigtran] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:03:50 +0530

Hi,
       I also do agree with the openion of having an updated M3UA
       better than an I-G.This makes more sense now as IMO M3UA
       will undergo minor corrections from now onwards. It would be
       easier for every one to understand better one revised, complete
       document instead of many.

Kamesh Kaul
www.hssworld.com
Hughes Software Systems

"Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 10/22/2003 06:21:13 PM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, "Pascal Bouveron
       (Netbricks)" <[email-masked]>
cc:    [email-masked]

Subject:    RE: [Sigtran] How about publishing FULL documents that would
       INCL UDE implementors guides ?

Hi Brian, Pascal,

Well, originally I thought that we could do an IG a lot
faster...

Brian is correct, M3UA is an RFC and is therefore the
normative text until we actually get an M3UA IG approved.
M2PA, on the other hand, is still a draft, so we can
keep updating it fairly easily for the moment.

The IG approach made sense originally when the thought
was that almost all of the RFC text was fine, just some
limited corrections needed to be made based on implementation
experience.  If it turns out that revising the RFC is
easier for people to understand, that's fine too - we
agreed to do this for IUA rather than doing an I-G.

What do other people think?  Is an updated M3UA better
than an I-G?  (When approved, it would replace RFC 3332).

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:22 AM
To: Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] How about publishing FULL documents that would
INCLUDE implementors guides ?

Pascal,

Where did you get the impression that you have to apply six
upgrades to RFC 3332?  The normative text is RFC 3332.  The
various I-G drafts are WG working documents.

I would prefer draft-ietf-sigtran-rfc3332-bis-XX.txt as well,
but Lyndon kept extolling the virtues of a delta RFC vs.
a replacement RFC.  Why was a delta document so much better
again Lyndon?

--brian

Pascal Bouveron (Netbricks) wrote:
(Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:43:53)
> Dear all,
>
> This remark is intended for the drafts publishers, but surely reflects a
> thought that, i'm sure, most people here will share with me.
>
> I'm pretty sure that most of us would appreciate to be able to download
FULL
> upgraded drafts documents that would include the latest
implementors-guides,
> rather than having to manually upgrade by themselves their own copy of
the
> drafts/RFC with that many Implementors-guides that are published from
time
> to time.
> For instance: a document like
> "RFC3332-upgraded-with-implementors-guide-06.txt" would be appreciated by
> all of us.
>
> The idea here is to have only one trusted source for full reference
> documents.
> This would definitely get rid of the risk of typos in the manual upgrade
> operations, which could easily lead to mis-understanding, and therefore
> potential problems in the actual implementation of the draft/RFC.
> And that again for each I-G that is published.
>
> Not talking about saving the hours of individual text editing that are
> required to upgrade our own copies of the draft(or RFC) documents with
the
> implementors-guides that were just released, of course multiplied by the
> hundrers of people all over the world who are doing the same to remain
> current.
> Let's imagine the painful task for people who are new to Sigtran, and
have
> first to download the RFC3332 (M3UA), and then apply 6
Implementors-guides
> changes into that original RFC before finally having a working document
that
> is current...
>
> I see that the "draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-10.txt" document is a FULL
document,
> not only a list of upgrades.
> Why not have the same principle for upgrades on RFC's ?
>
> Best regards / Meilleures salutations
> Pascal Bouveron
> =============================================
> www.netbricks.com
> Netbricks - Provence - FRANCE
> Tel: (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 77 -- Fax:  (+33) (0)4 42 91 44 71
> =============================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Hughes Software Systems Limited
(HSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
addressed. It may contain  privileged or confidential information and
should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is
intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or
disclosing the contents of this message. HSS accepts no responsibility for
loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this
email including damage from virus."

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