Deficiency in Annex M, specifically M.2?

Francois Audet audet at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Fri Jul 7 15:54:31 EDT 2000


> Hi Francois,
>
> Are you saying that even if the OID hierarchy is underneath
> ITU H 225, it is still not advisable to enumerate non-ITU variants?
> I am not very knowledgeable about OID manners so I didn't realize
> this is frowned upon.

No, I'm saying the current OID for ISUP refers specifically to an ITU-T
Recomendation, not the concept of "ISUP" (the OID is owned by ITU). To
refer to, lets say, an ANSI version would require an ANSI OID.

> Regarding variants for QSIG, I suppose you could have a complicated
> OID hierarchy underneath Annex M (1) that lists the version for each
> functional area (basic call, generic protocol, supp services, etc).
> There's no reason the hierarchy can't be different underneath each
> Annex M protocol, is there?

Yeah. So this seems to be too complicated, which is why we just say "QSIG".

> My original concern was for ISUP - I take it the ability to
> discriminate version(s) is important for QSIG as well?

I don't think it is as important since most implementation have already
converged to the ISO standard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000707/48c14bb4/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list