🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CMM.0.90.2.728041349.jon@gode.ifi.uio.no>, "Jon \\lnes" 
<jon@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.075848.28882W@lumina.edb.tih.no> ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil 
>Albertsen,TIH) writes:

>> I suspect that the Q3 you are referring to is the *reference point* Q3, it
>> is not a standard itself, but defined by Q.941 or thereabouts (Q.94?).

>Wrong, although not entirely wrong. The base document to ce
>is CCITT's TMN (Telecommunications Management Network) architecture,
>described in the M.3010 document (formerly M.30). 

Mea culpa. I checked my stack of old notes, and a lot of the TMN stuff
WERE labelled Q.942. But those were 1987 working drafts, and the info was
reorganized (into the M series) before the 1988 CCITT pleanry assembly.

But:

>If two functional blocks are realized within one piece of equipment, the
>reference point between them is an internal interface, and its implementation
>is not standardized. If the blocks are in different pieces of equipment,
>the reference point must be realized as a standardized communication inter-
>face, denoted by a capitalization of the letter, e.g. 'Q3'.

Are you certain that you are not turning it upside-down? I have always
been told (by telecom people) that conceptual reference points are labelled
with uppercase letters, while physical interfaces are labelled with
lowercase ones. If you look in the ISDN standards, eg. I.210, the ref
points are consistenly called R, S, T (defining *functionality*); if an
NT2 and an operator TE1 is physically integrated you still have an S
reference point but no physical "s" interface. Or is it me turning it
around? (I am not a telecom man myself!)