Subject: Re: One-to-one correspondance between text and binary for remote/ loca l descriptor

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:53:01 -0400

Right at the moment, there is not an attempt to force a one-to-one
between Annex C and SDP.  The ATM stuff is designed to at least
have the SDP have all of the ATM stuff in Annex C.

Some day, we will have to do some more rationalization.  Perhaps we
will use the ideas of defining packages that specify the dialect of
SDP, and the corresponding Annex C properties.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Naren Tulpule [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:49 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: One-to-one correspondance between text and binary for
> remote/loca l descriptor
>
>
> Hi list,
>   I'd like to know if eventually (when ATM SDP is defined
> etc) there SHALL
> be a one-to-one correspondance between (a revised) annex C and SDP. It
> largely exists now in Megaco/H.248 for annex A and annex B.
> (As a sidebar,
> as someone from Hughes pointed out; we COULD have had things
> better - to
> enforce the at-most-once restriction in syntax itself. e.g.
>
> Megaco ABNF:
> contextAudit = contextAuditToken LBRKT contextAuditProperties *(COMMA
> contextAuditProperties) RBRKT
> ; at-most-once
> contextAuditProperties = (TopologyToken / EmergencyToken /
> PriorityToken)
>
> This could have been, for example:
> contextAudit =  contextAuditToken LBRKT [TopologyToken]
> [EmergencyToken]
> [PriorityToken] RBRKT
>
> The "price" we would have paid would be to have a fixed order
> among the
> three choices. )
>
> Still, is the same thing true for annex C properties? I.e.
> will sub-fields
> within attributes which have to be all present (or "-")
> together in SDP will
> be grouped in a sub-sequence in binary encoding? E.g. for ATM traffic
> descriptor?
>
>
>
> -- Naren.
> Narendra C. Tulpule
> SMTS, Trillium Digital Systems Inc
> 12100 Wilshire Bl #1800 LA CA 90025
> Ph:  +1-310-442-9222
> Fax: +1-310-442-1162
>