28 Apr
2016
28 Apr
'16
2:52 p.m.
Hi Neels,
I'm a bit troubled by the following statements:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:27:11PM +0200, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
The merge-Iu-to-master review will be ... extreme,
probably. Daniel and I
should at some point take a look at refactoring the commit sequence to
group by semantics and iron out trial-and-error commits.
But it won't happen without an A-interface, I guess, so it is quite far
down the line at this point (unless we keep NITB somehow, which would
probably also be a bit of work).
It was clearly not the intention to keep the code out of master for more
than the time it takes to implement those features.
So yes, very clearly, for the CS side the NITB has to stay intact after
a merge of the Iu, until the A interface is implemented. So please
don't think of this as something "far down the line".
For the PS side, I don't see any reason at all why a merge to master
should be postponed much longer (after it works end-to-end, with GSUP
and external HLR). The newly-introduced libiu should be easy to add
without any risk to break existing code. And the decisions about Gb vs.
IuPS are all made at runtime when looking at the respective subscriber /
mm_context.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)