🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> As a result of the Sydney WG2 meeting, the proposed amendment to ISO
> 8348/Add2 to remove the preferred decimal encoding will be sent out for
> ballot as ISO 8348/PDAM 4.
>
> This admendment does not preclude the use of the decimal encoding, it
> simply removes its specification (and the corresponding requirement
> that all NSAPs can be encoded using it) from the scope of the
> Addressing Addendum.   This requirement was the limiting factor in
> the restrictions placed upon the length of DSPs with binary
> abstract syntax. (You can look at the scheme for decimal encoding of
> DSPs with binary abstract syntax [8.3.2.d] and verify that the values given
> in table 3 represent the largest (measured in octets) binary value that
> can be encoded into a 40 decimal digit NSAP after encoding the IDP).

Is the decimal encoding still valid (it is only not PREFFERRED)? I thought
that at this moment e.g. X.25 does use decimal encoding. Correct?

So in case there is a possibility that different encoded subnetworks are
connected, then the gateways/interworking units must be able to translate
from binary to decimal encodings. In that case it must be possible to
translate a binary encoded address into a decimal encoded address en vice
versa. How is it then possible to change the length of the binary abstract
syntax? If it is 20 octets long, it does not fit in the decimal encoding!

Can somebody explain this to me?

All the best,

                           _   _   _   _
                          |S| |U| |R| |F|
___________________________|___|___|___|_________________________
                             |   |   |
                            (n) (e) (t)
Victor Reijs                                   tel: +31 30 310290
Network development                            fax: +31 30 340903
SURFnet b.v.                             E-mail: Reijs@SURFnet.nl
P.O.box 19035                            Memocom: (124)27:sir003
3501 DA Utrecht
The Netherlands