Title:                                    Predicate missing in the CF state
        table
     
        PDR Reference:                             98100006
     
        Originator Reference:                      PDR-ACI-ULS-980917
     
        SARPs Document Reference:             ULCS SARPS section 4.3.3
     
        Status:                                    RESOLVED
     
        Impact:               D (Minor)
     
        PDR Revision Date:               18/01/99 (PROPOSED -> RESOLVED)
     
                              17/11/98 (ACCEPTED -> PROPOSED)
     
                                    26/10/98 (SUBMITTED -> ACCEPTED)
     
        PDR Submission Date:                  13/10/98
     
        Submitting State/Organization:         ACI
     
        Submitting  Author  Name:                 Christophe ARNAUD / Shawn 
        Stokes
     
        Submitting Author E-mail Address:
     
        Christophe.ARNAUD@cdv.vly.sextant.thomson-csf.com
     
                                               Shawn.Stokes@ATNSI.COM
     
        Submitting Author Supplemental
     
        Contact Information:
     
        SARPs Date:                                IV2.3
     
        SARPs Language:                            English
     
        Summary of Defect:
     
        Table  4.3-4  of  the  ULCS  indicates that, in the Release Pending 
        State  (STA3),  and  upon receipt of a P-DATA.ind conveying a RLRQ, 
        the Control Function (CF) should generate a P-RELEASE indication to 
        ACSE, and enter in the Release Collision State (STA4).
     
        But there is two reasons why a CF may be in STA3:
     
        *  case  1:  the  DS-user  issued  a  D-END.req (i.e. the CF is the 
        Release Initiator)
     
        *  case  2:  while  in the Data-Transfer phase (STA2), a P-DATA.ind 
        conveying  a  RLRQ  was    received  (i.e.  the  CF  is the Release 
        Responder)
     
        If  the  CF  is  the  Release  Initiator  (case  1) then the action 
        specified  in table 4.3-4 is correct, and the CF should move to the 
        Release Collision State (STA4) as specified.
     
        Otherwise,  i.e. if the CF is the Release Responder, the receipt of 
        a  second  RLRQ from the remote ACSE entity should be treated as an 
        error (the action in the table is no longer valid).
     
        The p2 predicate is missing in one of the cells of table 4.3-4 that 
        leads to the STA4 state.
     
     
     
        Assigned SME:               Sub-Volume IV SME (Tony Kerr)
     
     
     
        Proposed SARPs amendment (proposal by originator):
     
        1) Change in ULCS SARPs table 4.3-4
     
        Event Source: P-DATA.ind(RLRQ), State: STA3
     
        Change cell from:
     
            STA4
     
            P-RELEASE ind
     
        to:
     
            p2: STA4
     
            P-RELEASE ind
     
     
     
        2). Change in ULCS SARPs section 4.3.3.6.5.2.2.2 from:
     
        b)  if  in  the  RELEASE  PENDING  state,  then  invoke a P-RELEASE 
        Indication  primitive  at  the ACSE lower service boundary with the 
        RLRQ as User Data, and enter the RELEASE COLLISION state;
     
        to:
     
        b)  if  in  the  RELEASE  PENDING  state, and the CF is the Release 
        Initiator, then invoke a P-RELEASE Indication primitive at the ACSE 
        lower  service  boundary  with the RLRQ as User Data, and enter the 
        RELEASE COLLISION state;
     
     
     
        Impact on interoperability:
     
        Without  this  amendment,  in  the  unlikely event that a peer ACPM 
        issued  two  consecutive RLRQ APDUs then this would not be detected 
        by  the  CF, but the local ACPM should abort the association.  With 
        this  amendment,  then the CF will abort the association before the 
        event  is  passed  to  the  ACPM.   There is therefore no impact on 
        interoperability.
     
     
     
        SME Recommendation to CCB:
     
        Progress  the PDR to RESOLVED, with the solution as proposed by the 
        originator.
     
        CCB Decision:   RESOLVED (CCB-8 meeting, Honolulu)