Assessing the results of

[Jerry Scharf]

I had a hard time with classIDs issue as presented by Tom. I am somewhat
neutral on the idea of using a two levels to send termination descriptions.
I am not sure that this will be more efficient to implement in the real
world, but that was not my objection.

My objection was to the idea of standardizing these classIDs. If the
rationale for these is the efficient transmitting of termination
descriptions, then they should be modeled to the set of descriptions that
will be in use by the MG in question. Since there is a strong relationship
between MG and MGC (or between MGCs), these can be sent once at either the
time of relationship formation or of classID creation, and get all the
efficiency benefits that are proposed. Does anyone believe that there will
be any restrictions on creating specific classIDs to meet specific MG needs?
If not, that seems sufficient to handle the purpose being proposed with no
loss in generality.

Every time we put something in a standard, we create a legacy issue that all
future systems are forced to deal with. I do not see any specific advantage
in codifying what these classIDs shall contain.

jerry