Subject: RE: [Megaco] Statistics and Move

From: "David Barr"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:16:10 -0000

I've noticed that the reference to "the call" has been removed in v2, look
at section 6.2 in:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-h248v2-01.txt
It now says:
"Statistics are reported ... when the Termination is subtracted from a
context."

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Varney [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:10 AM
To: Terry L Anderson
Cc: Megaco Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Statistics and Move

That still leaves the 6.2 ambiguity regarding "the call".  IMO the concept 
of a call should not exist in H.248, other than perhaps in 
examples.  Asking an MG to understand how it is being used (as a call 
controller vs. a fancy video server) requires a lot of guessing in 
implementations.  My (hypothetical) video server would never be involved in 
"calls", but I need the statistics to bill hotel guests.

    Other than examples, glossary and other areas where the term "call" is 
used descriptively, 6.2 appears to be the only area where a "requirement" 
uses this term.  I suggest it be clarified.  Perhaps:

   "Statistics on a termination are automatically
    reported only when a termination is Subtracted
    from a context."

Al Varney

At 05:34 PM 3/7/02 -0500, Terry L Anderson wrote:
>I thought this had been discussed before but nothing got added to IG and I
>could not find the discussion.  I have no problem either way, I just want
it
>unambiguous and I am afraid the current document is ambiguous and probably
>closer to implying zeroing because of the references to Context.  If we
>agree with Brian then we should change the language in 7.1.15 to not refer
>to Context in the first sentence (and then need no changes to language
about
>reporting or clearing).
>
>This adds to the distinction between Move and Subtract followed by Add
which
>is not a bad thing.
>
>"Rosen, Brian" wrote:
> > Huh, I thought we had decided that they were NOT zeroed on
> > a MOVE which is why they aren't automatically reported.

> > > From: Terry L Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> > > Statistics on a termination are defined in two ways:
> > > 1.     6.2 says:
> > >     "Statistics are reported...when the termination is taken
> > > out of the
> > > call it is in."
>
> > > 2.    7.1.15 says:
> > >     "The Statistics parameter provides information describing
> > > the status
> > > and usage of a Termination during its existence with a specific
> > > Context."
>
> > > I don't think a "call" is a well defined concept in H.248, but perhaps
> > > these two statements are consistent if we associate a "call" with a
> > > context.  The issue is, if a termination is Moved to a different
> > > termination, is it in the same call (one party is probably
> > > the same but
> > > the other may not be)?  Or, more specifically are its statistics
> > > zero'ed.

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:55:05 -0500

Thanks for noticing this.  You are right.  We did fix the "call"
language during the editing session in Geneva and the change made it
into V2 but failed to make it into the IG and get swept into V1
Amendment 1 (or Corrigendum 1 whichever name sticks)

What do folks think?  Do we need to fix the language in V1 as well
through an IG entry?

But this still does not address the issue that referring to "Context"
here and in 7.1.15 makes it confusing that Move does not effect it.
Perhaps language like:

"when the Termination is subtracted so that it ceases to exist or is
returned to the NULL Context."  Would make it clearer that the issue is
"recycling" the termination and not its relationship to a Context.

David Barr wrote:

>
>
> I've noticed that the reference to "the call" has been removed in v2,
> look at section 6.2 in:
> >could not find the discussion.  I have no problem either way, I just
> want it
> >to Context in the first sentence (and then need no changes to
> language about
> >reporting or clearing).
> >
> >This adds to the distinction between Move and Subtract followed by
> Add which
> >is not a bad thing.
> >
> >"Rosen, Brian" wrote:

--

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:908.582.7013   Fax:908.582.6729
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:55:05 -0500

--

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:05:58 +0200

Hi,

I wonder if we should treat the statistics different depending on if a
Termination is moved to another non-NULL context, or a NULL context. IF
we move it to the NULL context I think we could "reset" the statistics,
because that's also what happens when we move an emphemeral termination
to the NULL context (since the termination is deleted).

Comments?

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

Terry L Anderson wrote:

> returned to the NULL Context."  Would make it clearer that the issue
> is "recycling" the termination and not its relationship to a Context.
>
> David Barr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've noticed that the reference to "the call" has been removed in
>> v2, look at section 6.2 in:
>>
>> ttp://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-h248v2-01.txt
>>
>> It now says:
>> "Statistics are reported ... when the Termination is subtracted from
>> a context."
>>
>> >could not find the discussion.  I have no problem either way, I
>> just want it

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:05:58 +0200

Hi,

Comments?

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland