cheng yan | 21 May 2013 05:06
Picon
Favicon

回复: Sigtran Digest, Vol 101, Issue 1yu

ttp://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

要,ya4ARyTS
Yas
发送自THTC手机ar

----- Reply message -----
发件RIT人AR: sigtran-request <at> ietf.org
收件人: <sigtran <at> ietf.org>
主题: Sigtran Digest, Vol 101, Issue 1
日期: 周一, 4 月 29 日, 2013 年 03:00



If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send Sigtran mailing list submissions to sigtran <at> ietf.org 5RZtZrt To subATscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtranzs or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sigtran-request <at> ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at sigtran-owner <at> ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sigtran digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science (hammondjohnson <at> hushmail.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MessQTRZQTWage: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:00:35 -0400 From: hammondjohnson <at> hushmail.com To: sigtran <at> ietf.org Subject: [Sigtran] Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science Message-ID: <20130427180035.E32E3E6736 <at> smtp.hushmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" We ar日e researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world?s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP?s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP?s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia?s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP?13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP?s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP?13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP?s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/si
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Norah Jones | 4 May 2013 08:50
Picon

Abort chunk in SCTP

Hi, 

I am using LKSCTP in my project, one sometime I see that by box receives About chunk from the peer. Now
question is what are the possibilities for which we can receive abort chunk from remote.

Thanks,
Norah Jones
hammondjohnson | 27 Apr 2013 20:00
Favicon

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.

We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware

Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a 
payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the 
fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman 
of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from 
WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. 

We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts 
to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP.  DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped 
indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See 
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the 
conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of
http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers 
about WORLDCOMP. 

The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific
to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than 
having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever!

Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, 
using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing 
out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published 
in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) 
who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using 
fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences
to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to 
threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). 
That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published 
at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. 

Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has 
refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image 
being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 
is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. 

The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee 
members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact 
details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! 

Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for 
all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal 
the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many 
papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at 
the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 

Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop 
this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. 

We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities 
http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com   Search Google using the 
keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Vaibhav Banga | 12 Mar 2013 10:36
Picon

Clarification regarding the IPSP behavior for ASPTM messages without RC

Hi All,

 

I would request you to clarify regarding the IPSP D.E mode behavior for ASPTM messages without RC.

 

According to M3UA RFC 4666 section 4.3.1 last paragraph :

“ASPTM messages.  When sending ASPTM messages to activate/deactivate

     all the traffic independently of routing keys by not specifying any

     RC, a single exchange could be sufficient.”

 

A single exchange of ASPTM messages without RC sufficient to activate/deactivate the traffic.  Whereas the diagram in section 5.6.2. double exchange it looks, even if RC is optional, double exchange of ASPAC messages are required.  

 

               IPSP-A                           IPSP-B                 |                                |                 |<-------------ASP Up------------|                  |-----------ASP Up Ack---------->|                 |                                |                 |-------------ASP Up------------>|  (optional)                  |<----------ASP Up Ack-----------|  (optional)                 |                                |                 |<------- ASP Active(RCb)--------|  RC: Routing Context                  |-----ASP Active Ack (RCb)------>|      (optional)                 |                                |                 |------- ASP Active(RCa)-------->|  RC: Routing Context                  |<-----ASP Active Ack (RCa)------|      (optional)                  |                                |                 |<=========  DATA (RCa) =========|                 |==========  DATA (RCb) ========>|                  |                                |                 |<-----ASP Inactive (RCb)--------|  RC: Routing Context                  |----ASP Inactive Ack (RCb)----->|                 |                                |                 |------ASP Inactive (RCa)------->|  RC: Routing Context                  |<----ASP Inactive Ack (RCa)-----|                 |                                |                 |<-----------ASP Down------------|                  |---------ASP Down Ack---------->|                 |                                |                 |------------ASP Down----------->|  (optional)                  |<--------ASP Down Ack-----------|  (optional)                 |                                |

 

Both section are seems to be contradictory.  I would request you to clarify the behavior for ASPAC/ASPIA messages without RC for IPSP Double exchange mode. Whether single exchange of ASPTM messages or double exchange of ASPTM messages are required to acivate/deactivate the traffic with out RC.

 


-
Thanks and kind Regards,
Vaibhav Banga
Software Engineer,
ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES
Gurgaon, Ph.No. 09654714588
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
lalitha kumari | 12 Mar 2013 10:19
Picon

bnpptxUT7vTg:-akZ3RR7LlF1Ipc3glBlkmCz3bASr7U6lJrNGA



--
lalitha
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
deddi hp | 10 Feb 2013 14:17
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

(no subject)

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Nemana, Satya | 14 Jan 2013 15:16
Favicon

Encoding scheme, Number of Digits parameters, GTI in SUA message

Hello!

I had two questions trying to understand a problem with GT in SUA.

1) Why is the encoding scheme parameter normally present in the SS7 messages absent in the SUA message as a
parameter. In the absence of the encoding scheme in the SUA Called party GT, how does the SUA NIF analyze the digits.

2) The number of digits in the SUA message (called party) is already known depending on the digits included,
i.e if I have a GT of 0123456789, then I have 10 digits. In such a situation where the number of digits present
is implicitly known, why do we have an other parameter " Number of Digits" to tell the same? What is the
significance of this parameter?
In most cases, GT is a phone number, why would we want to use only part of it for processing the message? (there
would have been a wildcard GT provisioned for the destination(s) on the SG/STP to handle the case of using a
subset of the digits.

3) Also, in section 3.10.2.3, the text
<snip>
0001 Nature of Address is taken over
<snip>
What does "taken over" mean? (Sorry, I don't mean the English meaning of it but taken over in this sentence :
When there is an explicit Nature of Address parameter in SUA messages , I don't understand what is taken
over here?)

4) ANSI specs and ITU specs for message format for different GTI values are different
Example :
ANSI GTI 1 : Global title includes translation type, numbering plan and encoding scheme
ITU GTI 1 : global title includes nature of address indicator only
SUA RFC only specifies ITU spec Q.713 reference.
Is it just for an example, and that similar formats should be used from ANSI or other specs wherever possible?
Or is it to say that the format for the particular GTI is now redefined with the SUA spec and this should be used?

Regards,
Satya
urte plesske | 23 Oct 2012 16:58
Picon
Favicon

M3UA: SCON: congestion condition never abates

Hello, I'm faced with a problem based on the following architecture:

AS connected to two SGs
   AS
  /  \
 /    \
SG1---SG2
SCCP: SGs are making GTTs to route to the ss7 network.
MTP configurations on AS:
There are two routesets defined on AS, one to SG1 (containing direct route and route over SG2) and to SG2 (containing direct route and route over SG1)
 
SCON message was received by AS from SG2 with affected PC SG1.
On AS the route set (PC SG1) was inhibited. No traffic was sent to SG1 by AS any more.
 
Usually the AS would start sending periodic DAUDs messages as a result of the congestion, but because SG1 was got to know as adjacent node, no DAUDs with affected Point Code = Point Code SG1 were sent by any ASP.
No SCON messages were sent by SG2 to AS because no DATA and DAUD messages were received to react.
The congestion condition never abates.
 
Could you please help me with the following questions:
How to solve this situation (timer on AS?)?
Is it correct not to audit adjacent nodes?
Can (should) SG2 send a SCON message even there are no DATA and DAUD messages to react? 
Where can I find (rfc) the information, that SCON is like TFC and not TFR?
 
Thanks a lot!
 
regards, urte

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Lalitha Kumari Gopi Reddy | 23 Jul 2012 12:46
Favicon

Hi

 

 

Thanks & Regards,

Lalitha Yerrapaneni 

ARICENT Technologies.





===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Lalitha Kumari Gopi Reddy | 23 Jul 2012 12:35
Favicon

Need suggestion on the behavior of M3UA on override mode in IPSP

 

 

Thanks & Regards,

Lalitha Yerrapaneni 

ARICENT Technologies.





===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
aditi someshwar | 5 Apr 2012 08:29
Picon

Re: SIGTRAN: Client-Server model

True, but does it mean that all functions of the "client" and "server" are applicable to SIGTRAN?
Why can't they be peer to peer nodes?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elnur Atakishiyev <eatakishiyev <at> azerfon.az> wrote:

Hi Aditi,

This is because of Sigtran is based on IP protocol and for two nodes interconnection between each other one of them must be act as “SERVER” and other one is must be acted as “CLIENT”.

 

 

Best regards

Elnur Atakishiyev
Billing Engineering Senior Specialist
Billing Engineering team
Planning and Engineering Unit
Billing Department
Information Technologies Division

Tel: (+994 12) 4440730
Fax: (+994 12) 4440733
Mob: (+994 70) 2011342
E-mail: eatakishiyev <at> azerfon.az
Web:www.azerfon.az

Privacy disclaimer

AZERFON LLC
Building 20 C
1240 Nobel Ave., Khatai district
Baku AZ 1025
Azerbaijan

 

 

From: sigtran-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of aditi someshwar
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:46 AM
To: sigtran <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Sigtran] SIGTRAN: Client-Server model

 

Hi all,

One very fundamental question:


SIGTRAN uses "Client-Server" model.

Can anyone please tell why?

Regards,
Aditi


Privacy Declaration: This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from "Azerfon LLC" ,which is intended
only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
(including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or
email immediately and delete it!

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

Gmane