Found 2 records.
Errata ID: 2065
Status: Held for Document Update
Reported By: AMIR KHAN
Date Reported: 2010-03-04
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 3.8.2 says:
The Notify message contains the following parameters: Status Mandatory ASP Identifier Conditional Routing Context Optional INFO String Optional
It should say:
The Notify message contains the following parameters: Status Mandatory ASP Identifier Conditional Routing Context Conditional <Changed> INFO String Optional
Considering the scenario below I think the Routing Context in Notify must be conditional.
If ASP1 is Actively processing traffic for both AS1(Override) and AS2(Loadshare) and another ASP2 of AS1 becomes ACTIVE. Then I think it becomes mandatory for SG to send Notify message ("Alternate ASP Active") with AS1 Routing Context. ASP1 will use this Notify (containing AS1 Routing Context) to become INACTIVE for AS1, without this AS1 Routing Context ASP1 will become INACTIVE for both AS1 and AS2, which is not desired here.
Also please go through mailing list with subject line "M3UA Notification and Routing Context" for more on this.
Errata ID: 2518
Reported By: Suyash Karmarkar
Date Reported: 2010-09-14
Rejected by: Robert Sparks
Date Rejected: 2010-09-14
Section 3.2. says:
3.2. Variable-Length Parameter Format M3UA-Specific parameters. These TLV parameters are specific to the M3UA protocol: Registration Result 0x0208 Deregistration Result 0x0209 Local Routing Key Identifier 0x020a
It should say:
3.2. Variable-Length Parameter Format Common Parameters. These TLV parameters are common across the different adaptation layers: Registration Result 0x0014, Deregistration Result 0x0015, Local Routing Key Identifier 0x0018,
As the above three parameters mentioned are used for the same purpose in RFC 3868 and in RFC 4666. So the above parameters in RFC 4666 Section 3.2, the M3UA-Specific parameters can be considered to move them into the common parameters section 3.2 of RFC 4666 with the above sepecified values.
The advantage could be, for one who implements both SUA & M3UA can use the same encoding and decoding mechanisms/code for both the implementations.
Per discussion on the SIGTRAN list, this is a fundamental and non-interoperable change to the protocol.
Report New Errata