esponding management function operates. The former operates on other traffic functions, the latter on tables and other resources of the traffic function itself. In AMLn, the traffic function and its management functions are specified as dif- ferent layers/protocols, interconnected by management control points (mrCP, as defined by AMLn). The way standards integrate these functions often creates a very complex picture of something that is rather simple to describe, An example of such an unnecessarily complicated standard is the V5.1 standard. An AMLn model of V5.1 reveals that it comprises four traffic layers and two management layers, the specification of which are all squeezed into a single standard document. Another example is the MTP architecture, as already men- tioned. 9. Implied software implementation of protocols and interfaces: Probably the most outstanding example of negative effects in this respect is the OSI upper-layer architecture. The standard confuses OO software implementation of OSI appli- cation layers with a network's functional structure and node structure. Structural concepts in this architecture also comprise pure software concepts, such as the "application process". The architecture therefore has a restricted applicability, and is also unnecessarily complicated. To a large extent this explains why OSI failed as a reference model (for data networks). You can read more about this in Sect. 6.2. 10. Lack of important separation principles: The actor-agent separation principle and its consequences (primarily the meta-primitive concept, the separation of control layers from connectivity layers and the division of control layers into an LPM and one or several LSMs) are very strong principles for keeping complex functional structures simple, intelligible, and maintainable. With the exception 6 Applying AMLn of ACSE, ROSE, and TCAP, standards use nothing of this kind. As a result, too many standards and protocols are very complex, difficult to understand, difficult to validate, and difficult to main