Subject: Re: BufferedEventHandling

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:30:53 -0500

I disagreed with what I heard at the design team meeting at the meeting.
I am proposing we keep what we have had for several months before the
Washington meeting rather than replace it with a whole new mechanism.

Chip

At 12:44 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>Event handling received a LOT of discussion in Washington.  The existing
>text dates from there; I can't see revisiting the issue.
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Chip Sharp
>[SMTP:[email-masked]]  Sent:   Tuesday, January 25, 2000 6:23
>PM  To:     [email-masked]  Subject:
>BufferedEventHandling
>
>Section:        7.1.7  Category:       Technical, Open
>Issue  Issue:          At the end of the Red Bank meeting, Section 7.1.7
>on  LocalControlDescriptor (Section 7.1.8 in TD-58 from the Red Bank
>meeting  [3]), contained the following text: "The TerminationBuffered
>parameter  describes actions taken by the MG when events are not
>immediately notified  to the
>controller.  1.      BufferedEventProcessingMode  specifies whether
>buffered events should be  processed (Process) or discarded
>(Discard)  2.      BufferedEventNotificationMode  specifies whether the
>Media Gateway is  expected to detect the requested event and notify the
>controller once (step  by step) or repeatedly (Loop).  The white
>contribution does not contain this text which constitutes a  significant
>technical change to the operation of event detection and  notification
>which we strongly disagree with.  Discussion:             It is
>recommended that the above deleted text is added to  Section 7.1.7 again.
>
>v13 Status:     WIDE OPEN. Text still missing. Extensive modification of
>entire  event processing has taken place.
>
>Section:        7.2.7, second last paragraph  Category:       Technical,
>Open Issue  Issue:          The draft text specifies that "If the
>BufferedEventProcessingMode  parameter of the Termination is set to
>"Discard", then the list shall  contain only the event that triggered the
>notification".  This constitutes a significant technical change to the
>operation of event  detection as indicated earlier for Section 7.1.7. The
>text was not present  at the end of the Red Bank meeting [3], nor should
>it be. Furthermore, the  text does not seem to make much sense; if an
>event is not to be reported,  then it is simply not included in the
>EventsDescriptor. This relates to the  removal of the
>BufferedEventNotificationMode which should not have
>happened.  Discussion:     It is strongly recommended that the
>specification on event  buffering concerning both notification and
>processing is revisited and  brought back in line with the outcome of the
>Red Bank meeting.
>
>v13 Status:     OPEN. Although the text has been removed, it is part of
>an  extensive modification of the entire event handling mechanism.
>
>Support
>NetAid!  <http://www.netaid.org>http://www.netaid.org
>--------------------------------------------------  Chip
>Sharp                 Consulting Engineering  Cisco
>Systems              Telco Bio-region  Reality - Love it or Leave
>it.  --------------------------------------------------

Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------