Raphael Tryster | 1 Jun 2005 14:45

RE: MGProvisionalResponsetimer

I am unable to access the link below.  Has it moved?  Can I find it somewhere else?

Raphael Tryster


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves <at> ericsson.com]
Sent:   Monday, January 10, 2005 4:46 AM
To:     Rajeev K R
Cc:     megaco <at> ietf.org; 'Kevin Boyle'
Subject:        Re: [Megaco] MGProvisionalResponsetimer

Hello Rajeev,

At the September Q.3 meeting the issues around MGProvisionalResponse timers were
discussed. An IG correction was accepted.

See section titled: "H.248.1 Provisional Response Timer Clarification"
http://avguest <at> ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2001-2004/0408_San/AVD-2569.zip

Regards, Christian

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Steve Cipolli | 1 Jun 2005 16:54
Favicon

RE: Conformance tests question

Two points:
1. ETSI H.248 Conformance Tests assume that any given request will
generate one and only one possible response.  Clearly this is not a
valid approach.  The original posting is a good example of this problem.
There is no specification outlining exactly what kinds of errors
generate errors at what level in a given response. Therefore, the test
must account for all possible legal responses.

2. The H.248.1 spec says responses can not contain '$' in the Context ID
as indicated by the original poster.    Clearly a conformance test can
not violate the standard it tests.  Stating that responses should be
allowed to return '$' in Context ID does not make it so.  Either the
Conformance Test or the standard needs to be amended.

--Stephen

Stephen Cipolli
Product Manager
RADVISION Inc.
1-201-689-6339
scipolli <at> radvision.com
www.radvision.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org
> [mailto:megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Boyle
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:49 PM
> To: B Venkat S.R Swamy; Seraya.Miletzki <at> ecitele.com
> Cc: megaco <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Megaco] Conformance tests question
> 
> 
> In most cases, the MG knows it cannot allocate a context at
> the time the request is detected -- that is, once the action 
> is parsed.  If the MG detects a problem, why would it 
> continue to parse?  The error descriptor ought to be placed 
> at the action level, so there would not be a context 
> indicated of any kind, let alone a CHOOSE wildcard.
> 
> Remember, error detection occurs at the earliest possible
> time with the error descriptor occurring at the level of 
> detection.  If the MG was not able to detect that it was 
> unable to allocate a context until the command or descriptor 
> level, then the error descriptor would go at the lower level.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org
> [mailto:megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of B Venkat S.R Swamy
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:25 AM
> To: Seraya.Miletzki <at> ecitele.com
> Cc: megaco <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Megaco] Conformance tests question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> IMO it is perfectly valid to specify CHOOSE for contextID in
> response to the test cases you have mentioned below.  As far 
> as the protocol text you have mentioned it applies mostly to 
> those scenario where you a valid context Id(includes wildcard 
> also) or Null context. Where MG has never been able to create 
> a context why should it return any other value.
> 
> Even the ABNF and ASN grammar in Appendix does not put any
> limitation on the set of values that can be used in the Reply 
> messages.
> 
> I however do agree that the relevant text should be modified
> to clarify these scenario and request authors to take this in 
> IG or upcoming V3 document.
> 
> regards
> B Venkat S.R Swamy
> Senior Technical Leader
> Flextronics Software Systems
> Phone:  +91-124-2455555 Extn 3620
> Fax: +91-124-2455345
> web: www.hssworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>              
>              Seraya.Miletzki <at> e                                
>              
>              citele.com                                       
>              
>              Sent by:                                         
>           To 
>              megaco-bounces <at> ie         megaco <at> ietf.org        
>              
>              tf.org                                           
>           cc
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>      Subject 
>              05/26/2005 05:17          [Megaco] Conformance 
> tests question 
>              PM                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all
> 
> I was performing conformance tests for the MEGACO according
> ETSI TS 101 889-2 v1.1.1 (2002-08). I have a question 
> regarding some of the expected results appeared on this
> tests:
> On error tests (BI type) there are several tests that send 
> request with ContextID set to CHOOSE ($). The expected 
> results on the tests contain action reply with ContextID set 
> to CHOOSE. Here is an example for this tests :
> 
> TP/MG/AD/BI-01 Reference: ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1 [3]
> clause 7.2.1 Selection criteria: ROOT termination implemented 
> Initial condition: any Ensure that the IUT, on receipt of a 
> Transaction Request containing
>       * Action request with
>             o CID set to CHOOSE
>             o ADD Command request wi
> sends a Transaction Reply containing
>       * Action reply with
>             o CID set to CHOOSE
>             o ADD Command reply wi
> RO
> 
> The H.248.1 v1 spec mandate that transaction reply may only
> contain a specific ContextID, ALL (*), or NULL (-).
> 
> Here's the relevant text from the H.248.1 v1 spec:
> 8.2.2     TransactionReply
> ...
> The ContextID parameter must specify a value to pertain to
> all Responses for the action. The ContextID may be specific, 
> all or null.
> 
> The following 19 items are the test cases with this requirement.
> 
> 1.    TP/MG/AD/BI-01
> 2.    TP/MG/AC/BI-01
> 3.    TP/MG/AC/BI-02
> 4.    TP/MG/AC/BI-03
> 5.    TP/MG/AC/BI-04
> 6.    TP/MG/AV/BI-01
> 7.    TP/MG/AV/BI-02
> 8.    TP/MG/AV/BI-03
> 9.    TP/MG/AV/BI-04
> 10.   TP/MG/MD/BI-01
> 11.   TP/MG/MD/BI-02
> 12.   TP/MG/MD/BI-03
> 13.   TP/MG/MD/BI-09
> 14.   TP/MG/SU/BI-01
> 15.   TP/MG/SU/BI-02
> 16.   TP/MG/SU/BI-03
> 17.   TP/MG/SU/BI-04
> 18.   TP/MG/MV/BI-01
> 19.   TP/MG/MV/BI-02
> 
> 
> Please help me to clear this issue.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Seraya_______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> Megaco <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************  FSS-Restricted   ***********************
> "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Hughes Software
> Systems Limited
> (HSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to 
> whom it is addressed. It may contain  privileged or 
> confidential information and should not be circulated or used 
> for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you 
> have received this message in error, please notify the 
> originator immediately. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited 
> from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of 
> this message. HSS accepts no responsibility for loss or 
> damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by 
> this email including damage from virus."
> "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics 
> Software Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the 
> use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain 
>  privileged or confidential information and should not be 
> circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is 
> intended. If you have received this message in  error, please 
> notify the originator immediately. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that 
> you are strictly  prohibited  from  using, copying, altering, 
> or disclosing the contents of this message.  FSS  accepts no  
> responsibility  for loss or damage arising from the use of  
> the information transmitted by this email including damage 
> from virus."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> Megaco <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> 
> 
> 
Christian Groves | 2 Jun 2005 01:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: querying termination state

Hello Troy,

Lucent have put in a proposal for addition to H.248.1v3 to allow scoped audits. 
Therefore you would be able to Audit Context=ALL, Termination=ALL, 
ServiceState=OSS and get a response with the matching terminations and their 
contexts. The functionality has been accepted but not the actual changes to the 
syntax and procedures.

Regards, Christian

troy wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> What Audit (?) form should be used to ask
> "what terminations are disabled"?
> 
> If there's more than one, I'm most interested
> in forms with compact requests and responses.
> 
> -troy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> Megaco <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> 
zhao bo | 2 Jun 2005 06:12
Favicon

A question about andisp/dwa pattern

Hello Kevin:

In H.248.23, the description of pattern of anidisp/dwa is:

"The pattern is an abstract indication of the distinctive alerting pattern that will
be applied to the line. The default is no pattern which indicates that the data
transmission should not be associated with any signalling."

Does this mean if no pattern parameter present, the MG should not make 
any ringing before sending the data block? While the description of andisp signal does say:

"Therefore, this signal implies alerting,
which will be appropriately applied to the CPE by the gateway, based upon the
on-hook/off-hook status of the line."

So it's overrided by the pattern description?
Thanks and best regard

Zhao Bo
Huawei Technologies
Picon
Favicon

Re: Packages extension (question 2)

Hi:

Thanks for your mails that had help me a lot to understand the syntax of the extended packages.
But I still have another question:

Signals syntax is:
  dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
But is it valid
  dg/d1 
being d1 a signal in 'dg'?

For the events and observed events descriptor we have:
  Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}}
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

If the events descriptor is:
  Events = 1 { dd/* }
Is it valid 
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/d2 }
or should be
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

thanks for your help, Julio

And for the observed events descriptor

   dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}, tonedet/std {tl = [d2, d3,
d4]}}
and it detects f.e. "d2" stat tone:
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} },
or
  ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = d2} } ?

Please see answers below inline.

At 12:23 AM 9/4/2002, Fhuval Hittay wrote:

	Thanks for answer, but there is one more question. "tonedet" package has "std"
	event with "tl" parameter, and that parameter has only one possible value "*".
	Suppose such a situation: MG received following Events descriptor
	Events = 1 { tonedet/std {tl = *} }
	and it detects "d2" start tone. Which ObservedEvents descriptor MG has to notify
	ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = *} }
	or something different?
Events descriptor above would match no events as tonedet itself has no individual
events ids. The only reason * is defined in tonedet is such that it does not have to
be defined in all the packages that extents it, since the meaning of * is exactly the
same no matter what package it is defined in. So you should really use this:
Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = *} }
and then on d2 start detect MG will send
ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

	But there is said "Extensions to this package would add
	additional possible values for tone id". Does it mean that instead of "*" we
	could use "dd" package's tones?
Not instead, but in addition to, and only in scope of dd package (see above).

	And what about "tonegen" package? In section E.3.3 is said:
	"No tone ids are specified in this package. Packages that extend this package
	can add possible values for tone id as well as adding individual tone signals".
	Does it mean, that if "dd" package extends "tonegen" package, we can use
	"tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}" form?
No, other way around, that means that dd package can use tonegen's signals
and its params, that is:
"dd/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}"

Cheers.
        Aleks

	Thanks in advance.

	-----------------------------

	From:  Aleksandr Ryabin <kengr <at> winphoria.com>
	Subject:  Re: [Megaco] Packages extension

	>Hi,
	>
	>         Usage of signal/event IDs apply only in the scope of the package
	>which defines them, or packages that extends that package.
	>Thus you can not use d0 in tonegen, it does not know what d0 is.
	>
	>To clarify, let say there is another packages dgx which also extends
	>tonegen and also defines d0, like dg package, but it means something
	>different.
	>If you were to use base package to access d0 then you would get the same
	>tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}  As you can see there is no way to distinguish
	>which package is being used: dg or dgx.
	>
	>The answers to your questions below are:
	>dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
	>dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}
	>Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}}
	>ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }
	>
	>Cheers.
	>         Aleks
	>
	>At 01:19 AM 9/3/2002, Fhuval Hittay wrote:
	>>  Hello all!
	>>In RFC there is said that "dg" package extends "tonegen" package, and does
	>it
	>>mean that I can use:
	>>    dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
	>>instead of:
	>>    tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]} ?
	>>
	>>Also "dd" package extends "tonedet" package. And instead of:
	>>    tonedet/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}
	>>I can use:
	>>    dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]} ?
	>>
	>>Question is: What is the difference between theese two forms of usage?
	>Which
	>>ObservedEvents descriptor MG has to return if it has following
	>>EventsDescriptor:
	>>   Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}, tonedet/std {tl = [d2, d3,
	>d4]}}
	>>and it detects f.e. "d2" stat tone:
	>>  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} },
	>>or
	>>  ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = d2} } ?
	>>
	>>Please, answer ASAP. Thanks in advance.
	>>_______________________________________________
jijo | 2 Jun 2005 13:17

Ephimeral Termination Name

Hi All,

Im working on a trunking gateway.What's the convention  normally follow 
while deciding the ephimeral termination name.? Please let me know 
what's the industry standard way of doing it?
In the call flow document, its mentioned as "EphA".
good if you can give some suggestion or example for endpoint names..

Jijo
B Venkat S.R Swamy | 2 Jun 2005 14:04

Re: Ephimeral Termination Name


Hi

Although its a implementation issue, but the Ephimeral name can be as
simple as RTPxxxx or EPHxxx to a more exhaustive naming schema
such as "ip/group/interface/≤xxx>" depending on the size of the gateway and
number of network interface cards available on
the system. Also mulitple naming schema's can be configured on MG depending
on whether the ephimeral endpoint is IP or ATM.

regards
B Venkat S.R Swamy
Senior Technical Leader
Flextronics Software Systems
Phone:  +91-124-2455555 Extn 3620
Fax: +91-124-2455345
web: www.hssworld.com

                                                                           
             jijo                                                          
             <jijoj <at> axestechno                                             
             logies.com>                                                To 
             Sent by:                  Megaco <megaco <at> ietf.org>            
             megaco-bounces <at> ie                                          cc 
             tf.org                                                        
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [Megaco] Ephimeral Termination Name 
             06/02/2005 04:47                                              
             PM                                                            

Hi All,

Im working on a trunking gateway.What's the convention  normally follow
while deciding the ephimeral termination name.? Please let me know
what's the industry standard way of doing it?
In the call flow document, its mentioned as "EphA".
good if you can give some suggestion or example for endpoint names..

Jijo

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

***********************  FSS-Restricted   ***********************
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Hughes Software Systems Limited
(HSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
addressed. It may contain  privileged or confidential information and
should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is
intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or
disclosing the contents of this message. HSS accepts no responsibility for
loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this
email including damage from virus."

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software 
Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the  
individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain  privileged or 
confidential information and should not be circulated or used for 
any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received 
this message in  error, please notify the originator immediately. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are
strictly  prohibited  from  using, copying, altering, or disclosing
the contents of this message.  FSS  accepts no  responsibility  for
loss or damage arising from the use of  the information transmitted
by this email including damage from virus."
B Venkat S.R Swamy | 2 Jun 2005 14:23

Re: Re: Packages extension (question 2)


 IMPORTANT: HUGHES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS LTD. (HSS) IS NOW FLEXTRONICS SOFTWARE
SYSTEMS LTD. (FSS)
Hi

For the signal, both the syntax have different role.
dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}--- MG will play d0 and d1 in sequence,

whereas
dg/d1 will only play d1.
However if the intention is to play only d1 then the later format is more
compact.

For the events, dd/* , since parameters has not been specified,  wildcard
cannot be resolved to std, etd and ltd events and thus
"ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/d2 }" is the only valid syntax..
Also note that "dd/*" alone is not a valid combination since , dd/* also
resolves to dd/ce event  and thus a valid eventDM parameters
should always be accompanied with the request.

regards
B Venkat S.R Swamy
Flextronics Software Systems
Phone:  +91-124-2455555 Extn 3620
Fax: +91-124-2455345
web: www.hssworld.com

                                                                           
             "Julio                                                        
             Martinez-Minguito                                             
             (AL/EAB)"                                                  To 
             <julio.martinez-m         <megaco <at> ietf.org>                   
             inguito <at> ericsson.                                          cc 
             com>                                                          
             Sent by:                                              Subject 
             megaco-bounces <at> ie         [Megaco] Re: Packages extension     
             tf.org                    (question 2)                        

                                                                           
             06/02/2005 12:44                                              
             PM                                                            

Hi:

Thanks for your mails that had help me a lot to understand the syntax of
the extended packages.
But I still have another question:

Signals syntax is:
  dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
But is it valid
  dg/d1
being d1 a signal in 'dg'?

For the events and observed events descriptor we have:
  Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}}
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

If the events descriptor is:
  Events = 1 { dd/* }
Is it valid
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/d2 }
or should be
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

thanks for your help, Julio

And for the observed events descriptor

   dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}, tonedet/std {tl = [d2, d3,
d4]}}
and it detects f.e. "d2" stat tone:
  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} },
or
  ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = d2} } ?

Please see answers below inline.

At 12:23 AM 9/4/2002, Fhuval Hittay wrote:

             Thanks for answer, but there is one more question. "tonedet"
package has "std"
             event with "tl" parameter, and that parameter has only one
possible value "*".
             Suppose such a situation: MG received following Events
descriptor
             Events = 1 { tonedet/std {tl = *} }
             and it detects "d2" start tone. Which ObservedEvents
descriptor MG has to notify
             ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = *} }
             or something different?
Events descriptor above would match no events as tonedet itself has no
individual
events ids. The only reason * is defined in tonedet is such that it does
not have to
be defined in all the packages that extents it, since the meaning of * is
exactly the
same no matter what package it is defined in. So you should really use
this:
Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = *} }
and then on d2 start detect MG will send
ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }

             But there is said "Extensions to this package would add
             additional possible values for tone id". Does it mean that
instead of "*" we
             could use "dd" package's tones?
Not instead, but in addition to, and only in scope of dd package (see
above).

             And what about "tonegen" package? In section E.3.3 is said:
             "No tone ids are specified in this package. Packages that
extend this package
             can add possible values for tone id as well as adding
individual tone signals".
             Does it mean, that if "dd" package extends "tonegen" package,
we can use
             "tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}" form?
No, other way around, that means that dd package can use tonegen's signals
and its params, that is:
"dd/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}"

Cheers.
        Aleks

             Thanks in advance.

             -----------------------------

             From:  Aleksandr Ryabin <kengr <at> winphoria.com>
             Subject:  Re: [Megaco] Packages extension

             >Hi,
             >
             >         Usage of signal/event IDs apply only in the scope of
the package
             >which defines them, or packages that extends that package.
             >Thus you can not use d0 in tonegen, it does not know what d0
is.
             >
             >To clarify, let say there is another packages dgx which also
extends
             >tonegen and also defines d0, like dg package, but it means
something
             >different.
             >If you were to use base package to access d0 then you would
get the same
             >tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}  As you can see there is no way to
distinguish
             >which package is being used: dg or dgx.
             >
             >The answers to your questions below are:
             >dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
             >dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}
             >Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}}
             >ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} }
             >
             >Cheers.
             >         Aleks
             >
             >At 01:19 AM 9/3/2002, Fhuval Hittay wrote:
             >>  Hello all!
             >>In RFC there is said that "dg" package extends "tonegen"
package, and does
             >it
             >>mean that I can use:
             >>    dg/pt {tl = [d0, d1]}
             >>instead of:
             >>    tonegen/pt {tl = [d0, d1]} ?
             >>
             >>Also "dd" package extends "tonedet" package. And instead of:
             >>    tonedet/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}
             >>I can use:
             >>    dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]} ?
             >>
             >>Question is: What is the difference between theese two forms
of usage?
             >Which
             >>ObservedEvents descriptor MG has to return if it has
following
             >>EventsDescriptor:
             >>   Events = 1 { dd/std {tl = [d2, d3, d4]}, tonedet/std {tl
= [d2, d3,
             >d4]}}
             >>and it detects f.e. "d2" stat tone:
             >>  ObservedEvents = 1 { dd/std {tid = d2} },
             >>or
             >>  ObservedEvents = 1 { tonedet/std {tid = d2} } ?
             >>
             >>Please, answer ASAP. Thanks in advance.
             >>_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

***********************  FSS-Restricted   ***********************
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Hughes Software Systems Limited
(HSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
addressed. It may contain  privileged or confidential information and
should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is
intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or
disclosing the contents of this message. HSS accepts no responsibility for
loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this
email including damage from virus."

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software 
Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the  
individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain  privileged or 
confidential information and should not be circulated or used for 
any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received 
this message in  error, please notify the originator immediately. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are
strictly  prohibited  from  using, copying, altering, or disclosing
the contents of this message.  FSS  accepts no  responsibility  for
loss or damage arising from the use of  the information transmitted
by this email including damage from virus."
troy | 2 Jun 2005 15:37
Favicon

Re: querying termination state

Thanks Christian,

But I'm really looking for what I can do
with the protocol today.

I understand that I proably can't really ask
"what terminations are disabled", but must ask
"what is the state of all the terminations".

What is the best current request/response form for that?

-troy

Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello Troy,
> 
> Lucent have put in a proposal for addition to H.248.1v3 to allow scoped 
> audits. Therefore you would be able to Audit Context=ALL, 
> Termination=ALL, ServiceState=OSS and get a response with the matching 
> terminations and their contexts. The functionality has been accepted but 
> not the actual changes to the syntax and procedures.
> 
> Regards, Christian
> 
> troy wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> What Audit (?) form should be used to ask
>> "what terminations are disabled"?
>>
>> If there's more than one, I'm most interested
>> in forms with compact requests and responses.
>>
>> -troy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Megaco mailing list
>> Megaco <at> ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>>
Frank Reno | 2 Jun 2005 23:16
Picon
Favicon

Topology Questions

Hello List,

1. Does a topology association with wildcarded
termination IDs apply to terminations added to the
context in the future or only to those currently in
the context?

	Transaction = 1
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {a/*, b/*, oneway},
			Add = a/1, Add = b/1
		}
	}
	Transaction = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Add = a/2
		}
	}

	What is the media flow between a/2 and b/1?

2. Does a topology association between two
terminations apply to new streams created on the
terminations?

	Transaction = 1
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {t1, t2, oneway},
			Add = t1 {Media {Stream = 1{...}}}, 
			Add = t2 {Media {Stream = 1{...}}} 
		}
	}
	Transaction = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Modify = t1 {Media {Stream = 2{...}}}, 
			Modify = t2 {Media {Stream = 2{...}}} 
		}
	}

	What is the media flow between t1 and t2 for stream
2?
	Is the answer different between protocol version 1
and 2?

3. What does the reply to an audit of the topology
descriptor look like? I assume it's valid to include
an association for every pair of terminations (or
streams) but this may lead to large message. Is it
valid to only
describe the links that are missing?

	Transaction = 1
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {t1, t2, oneway},
			Add = t1, Add = t2, Add = t3, Add = t4
		}
	}
	Transaction = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			ContextAudit {Topology}
		}
	}

	Is this valid?

	Reply = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {
			t1, t2, oneway
			}
		}
	}

	Or must all links be specified like one of these:

	Reply = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {
			t1, t2, oneway,
			t1, t3, bothway,
			t1, t4, bothway,
			t2, t3, bothway,
			t2, t4, bothway,
			t3, t4, bothway
			}
		}
	}

	Reply = 2
	{
		Context = 1
		{
			Topology {
			t1, t2, oneway,
			t3, *, bothway,
			t4, *, bothway
			}
		}
	}

cheers,
frank

		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/

Gmane