Subject: Re: Optional Tone Detect in a Package

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:01:34 -0600

I'll be interested in other opinions, but I think the issue is valid.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:17 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Optional Tone Detect in a Package
>
> The following issue has been raised:
>
> Issue: In section E.6 the draft text specifies that "Support of dA-dD is
> optional". Having optional events in a package tends to defeat the purpose
> of packages in the first place.
> Proposal: It is recommended that either support for the signals
> become mandatory or they are provided in a separate package.
>
> Opinions?
>
> I'd say, leave it, but I agree it's not pretty.

---

From: John Segers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:16:40 +0100

I don't see a big problem.  If the MGC implements the package correctly,
it knows that some tones are optional.  I will audit the MG to find out
which optional tones are supported before making assumptions about tone
support beyond the mandatory tones.

This requires an extra exchange between MGC and MG, but hopefully limits
fragmentation of packages (so we won't end up with packages defining one
tone each).

John

> Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

--
John Segers                                  email: [email-masked]
Lucent Technologies                                        Room HE 306
Dept. Forward Looking Work                      phone: +31 35 687 4724
P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA  Huizen                      fax: +31 35 687 5954