APC number Request

Sakae OKUBO okubo at GITI.WASEDA.AC.JP
Mon Aug 7 21:56:58 EDT 2000


Michael,

Thanks for responding. Please see my comments inline.

Thanks
Archana

UsageSpecification::= sequence
{
  sendTo     ElementIdentifier
  ...,
   sendToDomainIdentifier   AliasAddress
}

The domainIdentifier field will provide the following:

(a) an indication of which domain is to receive the usageIndications
(b) a resolvable address (either an explicit IP address, or something like a
URL or email address that can
       be resolved to one or more border element addresses within the target
domain)

Any comments?

[Archana Nehru]
I am not clear how we can use one field "sendToDomainIdentifier" to contain
both (a and b) information. Since "AliasAddress" is currently defined as a
"choice", would not we then need one more parameter in the usage
specification structure to indicate the second parameter(either a or b)?

But before we come to a solution for this problem, I think we need to answer
one more question which is:
" what is the purpose of including a "domainId" and "Border element
identifier" in the usage specfication message? How is a receiving BE
supposed to interpret and use this information? If these two together do not
give us a "resolvable" address, then why not add a field for a "resolvable
address" only?

Oddly enough Annex G specs does not discuss the purpose of exchanging (for
that matter even for having) fields like "domainId" and "border element
identifier" at all. So I guess we need to clarify this issue first and once
we are clear with that , we can suitable fields to the "usageSpecification"
structure.

Please let me know what you think.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000807/298fac25/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list