Subject: RE: [Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question

From: Carl Rutter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:13:45 -0400

OK,
 
The gray area here is 
2) If the AuditValue was on the ALL Context and the Termination was
wildcarded to
    say the T1 level(24) and say 21 of the 24 are in the NULL context,
    Should the reply contain the 3 good replies and 21 435 Errors?

I like what Raph stated that 

"I agree with your conclusion because auditing all terminations in all
contexts would be pretty useless if the MG returned an error for every
termination in the null context.  "

This does seem silly.  I guess the only thing I'm struggling with on this is
why is it apprpraite to send the

435 in the single Audit case and not in the Wildcarded Termination  "O-"
case?

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:46 AM
To: Kevin Boyle; Carl Rutter; [email-masked]
Cc: Brad Steinka
Subject: RE: [Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question

Kevin, 

I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you reached it. 

"If a command contains a wildcarded TerminationID, the command is attempted
with each of the actual TerminationIDs matching the wildcard.  A response
within the TransactionReply is included for each matching TerminationID,
even if one or more instances generated an error.  If any TerminationID
matching a wildcard results in an error when executed, any commands
following the wildcarded command are not attempted".

From the above, it is clear that processing halts after the wildcard, not in
the middle of it, otherwise you could not have more than one instance
generating an error.  So even if you returned errors, the result WOULD be
deterministic.

I agree with your conclusion because auditing all terminations in all
contexts would be pretty useless if the MG returned an error for every
termination in the null context.  I have the impression that the intention
of the standard is to perform set intersection between termination id
(wildcarded or not) and context id, and return an error if the resulting set
is empty.  Of course, this applies only to those commands where the
terminations are expected to be in the context before the command is issued
- Modify, Subtract, and Audit.

Raphael Tryster 

	BM__MailData-----Original Message----- 
From:   Kevin Boyle [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
Sent:   Wednesday, 14 August, 2002 9:42 PM 
To:     Carl Rutter; [email-masked] 
Cc:     Brad Steinka 
Subject:        RE: [Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question 

	Comments inline. [KJBII] 

	-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Rutter [  <mailto:[email-masked]> mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Brad Steinka
Subject: [Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question 

	I thought this was a simple one, anyone care to respond?
Thx,
Carl 

	I need a clarification on the following 2 scenarios: 

	1) AuditValue ALL Context on a specific Termination(which is in the
NULL
Context)
    The reply should be on the ALL context with error 435 right? 

	[KJBII] Correct. 

	2) If the AuditValue was on the ALL Context and the Termination was
wildcarded to
    say the T1 level(24) and say 21 of the 24 are in the NULL context,
    Should the reply contain the 3 good replies and 21 435 Errors?  Or am I
missing
    something where you can omitt the 435s?  I ask this because I have seen
flows
    that don't show the 435s. 

	[KJBII] I don't see any use for returning 3 replies and then an
error (remember, processing halts once an error is detected!)  Also, this
might be only one good response, and an error, or possibly just an error,
since the order of wildcard matching is determined by the MG.  Given that
this is the case, different MGs may have different matching algorithms, and
therefore the reply will not be deterministic from MG to MG.  So, in my
opinion, an error should only be returned if there are NO matching
wildcards.  Otherwise, return only the matches.

	Thx,
Carl 

	Carl Rutter
Telica, Inc.
Building G, Suite 100
734 Forest Street
Marlboro, MA 01752
Email [email-masked]
Voice 508-480-0909 x8178
Fax 508-480-0922
www.telica.com 

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

---

From: "Chuong N. Nguyen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:41:06 -0500

I struggled w/the same thing before and raised the issue several times but
there did not seem to be a consesus.

There were always a lot of opinons on what it should be but there always seemed
to be holes
like what you point out - single termination vs wildcard.

So I started to view or implement the Standard based on
what do I really want to accomplish at MGC (since I only work on MGC).

Also one would have to take the attitude that
"receiver of msg must be flexible" since there are so many different ways to
implement something
due to a Standard that is so flexible and sometimes does not want to dictate
implementation details.

So if your original intend is to find out what terminations are in a context
beside NULL,
you send a msg like you said but w/-O so it does not stop on the first error.

Whether MG returns error for terminations in NULL context or not, the MGC
should be
able to handle it.

After parsing through the reply, MGC will know what terminations are in a
non-NULL context -
the original intend of sending the Audit in the first place.

From MG view, since the Standard does not specifically defines what every Reply
should look like
and we can't wait forever for every little details to be defined,
sending with or without errors should be ok.
The MG can't be considered to have violated or non-compliant to the Standard.

Therefore I don't see any interoperability issue.
Of course there will be performance issues depending on which way it is
implemented
but that is something (performance) which the Standard never seems to address.

--
  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [email-masked]
  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    (972) 519-4613
  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:19:23 -0400

Hi,

         I might be wrong here, but if you view termination ID wildcard 
matching as matching
against terminations that are not in NULL context (that is 3 in your case) 
and not against all
terminations on MG that can possibly match given wildcard (that is 24 in 
your case) then
reply with 3 good audits is the only option since no error occurred. While 
in case of a single
termination ID it will not match any of these 3 terminations and thus you 
will get an error.

If you view it like that then there is no gray area, and the only reason 
MGC would want to
put -O is if more commands follow after that AuditValue and MGC wants them 
to be
executed even if all terminations (on that T1) are in NULL context.

Just my two cents.
         Aleks.

At 10:13 AM 8/15/2002, Carl Rutter wrote:
>This does seem silly.  I guess the only thing I'm struggling with on this 
>is why is it apprpraite to send the
>
>435 in the single Audit case and not in the Wildcarded Termination  "O-" case?
>
>Carl
>
>
>"If a command contains a wildcarded TerminationID, the command is 
>attempted with each of the actual TerminationIDs matching the wildcard.  A 
>response within the TransactionReply is included for each matching 
>TerminationID, even if one or more instances generated an error.  If any 
>TerminationID matching a wildcard results in an error when executed, any 
>commands following the wildcarded command are not attempted".
>
> From the above, it is clear that processing halts after the wildcard, not 
> in the middle of it, otherwise you could not have more than one instance 
>(wildcarded or not) and context id, and return an error if the resulting 
>set is empty.  Of course, this applies only to those commands where the 
>terminations are expected to be in the context before the command is 
>issued - Modify, Subtract, and Audit.
>
>Raphael Tryster
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Kevin Boyle 
>[SMTP:[email-masked]]  Sent:   Wednesday, 14 August, 2002 9:42 
>PM  To:     Carl Rutter; [email-masked]  Cc:     Brad 
>Steinka  Subject:        RE: [Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question
>
>Comments inline. [KJBII]  -----Original Message----- From: Carl Rutter [ 
><mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Tuesday, 
>August 13, 2002 9:11 AM To: [email-masked] Cc: Brad Steinka Subject: 
>[Megaco] AuditValue on ALL Context Question  I thought this was a simple 
>one, anyone care to respond? Thx, Carl  I need a clarification on the 
>following 2 scenarios:  1) AuditValue ALL Context on a specific 
>Termination(which is in the NULL Context)     The reply should be on the 
>ALL context with error 435 right?  [KJBII] Correct.  2) If the AuditValue 
>was on the ALL Context and the Termination was wildcarded to     say the 
>T1 level(24) and say 21 of the 24 are in the NULL context,     Should the 
>reply contain the 3 good replies and 21 435 Errors?  Or am I 
>missing     something where you can omitt the 435s?  I ask this because I 
>have seen flows     that don't show the 435s.  [KJBII] I don't see any use 
>for returning 3 replies and then an error (remember, processing halts once 
>an error is detected!)  Also, this might be only one good response, and an 
>error, or possibly just an error, since the order of wildcard matching is 
>determined by the MG.  Given that this is the case, different MGs may have 
>different matching algorithms, and therefore the reply will not be 
>deterministic from MG to MG.  So, in my opinion, an error should only be 
>returned if there are NO matching wildcards.  Otherwise, return only the 
>matches. Thx, Carl
>
>Carl Rutter Telica, Inc. Building G, Suite 100 734 Forest Street Marlboro, 
>MA 01752 Email [email-masked] Voice 508-480-0909 x8178 Fax 
>508-480-0922 www.telica.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________ Megaco mailing list 
>[email-masked] 
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco 
>

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:19:23 -0400

Hi,

Just my two cents.
         Aleks.

---

From: "Chuong N. Nguyen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:41:06 -0500