FW: MEGACO errata

[Christian Groves]

G'Day Tom,

When doing the definition of it was intended to support the ITU variant.
There wasn't any input to support anything else at the time.

Cheers, Christian

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>
> I'm forwarding this to the SG 16 list copy the Megaco list because I
> think the MTP address was firmed up at Red Bank.  Can anyone account
> for the failure to accommodate longer MTP addresses?  Was it simply
> because the intention was to use Annex I transport within an ITU
> environment only?
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From:   dacollins at notes.primeco.com
>      [SMTP:dacollins at notes.primeco.com]
>      Sent:   Friday, May 26, 2000 1:03 PM
>      To:     Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]
>      Subject:        MEGACO errata
>
>      Hi Tom,
>      Having had a look at the latest version of the MEGACO spec, I
>      noticed something
>      odd. The mId may be an MTP address. However, the MTP address is
>      defined in both
>      the ABNF and ASN.1 specifications as being 2 octets in length.
>      The ASN.1
>      description provides a comment that the point code (PC) is 14
>      bits and the
>      network indicator (NI) is two bits.
>      This is only correct for the ITU version of SS7.
>      In several countries, different versions of SS7 are used and
>      different
>      addressing schemes are used. In many countries, including the US,
>      Canada and
>      China, the PC is 24 bits long, with the NI still at two bits, for
>      a total of 26
>      bits. Therefore, to use an MTP address for the mId in those
>      countries, the
>      definition of the mId needs to change.
>
>      I hope this helps in finalizing the spec.
>
>      Daniel Collins

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com