Subject: RE: [Megaco] Digitmap

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:08:53 -0500

The "dialplan0" digitmap should be updated with the new map.  The MG
implementation in this example is in error.

The last paragraph prevents the MGC from invalidating a digitmap that is
actively collecting digits. Once the digit collection has completed on that
term, the digitmap is deleted for that term as well.  Remember that named
digitmaps can be created in advance and referred to by name in the Events
descriptor.  This is not necessary, though, since the digitmap can be fully
specified in the Events descriptor as necessary, and does not have to have a
name.

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vudatha Dhanunjaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:33 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Digitmap

Hi,

Please provide the clarification for the following text from RFC and our
Implementation...

*****************************
RFC 2525, Page # 40. - Digit Map descriptor

These are the descriptions provided for the digitmap descriptor

A new DigitMap is created by specifying a name that is not yet defined.  The
value shall be present.

A DigitMap value is updated by supplying a new value for a name
      that is already defined.  Terminations presently using the
      digitmap shall continue to use the old definition; subsequent
      EventsDescriptors specifying the name, including any
      EventsDescriptor in the command containing the DigitMap
      descriptor, shall use the new one.

A DigitMap is deleted by supplying an empty value for a name that
      is already defined.  Terminations presently using the digitmap
      shall continue to use the old definition.

***************************************************

We have an implementation of Megaco on MGC side, which sends 2 digit maps -
first for 7 digits and then for the remaining 3 digits.
But both the descriptors have the dial plan as "dialplan0". We have another
different implementation of Megaco for the MG side which considers these two
as the same descriptor [as the name is same] and so does not update the old
[for 7 digits] with the new [with 3 digits].

We would like to know which of the implementations are correct.
What is the exact meaning of these phrases in RFC, in this context.?.

Regards
Dhanunjaya

This email may contain confidential or privileged information for the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please do not
use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it from
your system. Thanks

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

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