Subject: Re: Continuity Tests and National Variants

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:10:09 -0500

I believe the assumption made in defining this package was that the MG would
be provisioned with the information required to apply the right test.  We
can see where consensus lies on this one.  The Q.724 thing certainly has to
be worked through -- it would be more consistent to assume that the flavour
of continuity test is provisioned along with the sub-type of the test.

As a general point, I'd suggest that we shouldn't try to solve everything in
v1 of the protocol; packages can be added over the next few months as needs
are identified.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:17 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Continuity Tests and National Variants
>
> Megacogans!
>
> The following issue has been raised:
>
> Issue: The draft text specifies that the possible values for the
> signals are "q724" and that the MG figures out whether a 2-wire or 4-wire
> continuity test is to be performed on the trunk in question. First of all,
> it is unclear how the MG determines precisely what continuity test variant
> to perform unless it is assumed that the MG is provisioned with this
> information, however this should not be a requirement. Secondly, national
> variants of continuity test procedures exist, and considering the package
> is a "basic continuity package" it should be possible to use this package
> without requiring support for Q.724 continuity test.
> Proposal: It is recommended, that the possible test values are not
> specified in this basic package, but that extension packages define this
> packages, similarly to the "tone generator" and "tone detection" packages
> defined in Annex E.1 and E.2
>
>
>
> I am inclined to agree, but advice from the list would be helpful.