Subject: Megaco Extensions

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:11:25 -0500

The primary form of extension of the protocol is through packages.  Auditing
of packages is a separate issue.  It is also possible to have extensions on
modem types and MUX types, and as parameters in ServiceChange.
AuditCapability should pick up the modem and MUX type extensions.  There is
no point in auditing ServiceChange extensions, since ServiceChange precedes
any audits.

Conclusion: issued closed except for packages.

                    From:         Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
                    Subject:      Auditing
                    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=flowed

                    Section:        7.1.12, table
                    Category:       Technical
                    Issue:          The draft text lists "Extensions" as
auditable items,
                    however the rest of the draft recommendation does not
define how auditing
                    of extensions is performed.
                    Proposal:       It is recommend, that the example API
and the protocol
                    syntax are extended to include auditing of extensions.

                    v13 Status:     The new draft has removed extensions
from the table.   The
                    implications are there are no extensions to descriptors
allowed in the new
                    draft, only extensions to parameters(?).  Also, there is
no way to audit
                    for extensions.

Tom Taylor
Advisor -- IPConnect Standards
E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961