Subject: RE: [Megaco] Inconsistency in the spec concerning SVC with method failover

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:51:47 -0500

First, what document are you looking at? Second, have you checked the IG to
see if this is fixed? Third, Annex F will discuss all the ServiceChange
function in detail once it is incorporated into H.248.1 v3, and v3 consents
in August.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Chirayu Patel
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:21 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Inconsistency in the spec concerning SVC with
methodfailover

Section 7.2.8 mentions

      Failover - sent from MG to MGC to indicate the primary MG is out
      of service and a secondary MG is taking over. This serviceChange
      method is also sent from the MG to the MGC when the MG detects
      that MGC has failed.

Annex D.1.5 mentions

      In order to account for the possibility of an undetected or in
      progress "failover", we modify the classic algorithm so that if
      the Media Gateway receives a valid ServiceChange message
      announcing a failover, it will start transmitting outstanding
      commands to that new MGC.

Annex D.1.5 implies that MGC will send failover to MG whereas Section 7.2.8
mention that failover is always sent from MG to MGC.

I think the Annex is in error and should be corrected and the aforementioned
lines should be replaced with text similar to.

      MG should transmit a Service Change with method failover to the
      secondary MGC when it detects a broken association . On successful
      completion of the Service Change procedure the MG SHOULD
      retransmit outstanding commands to the new MGC. All outstanding
      commands received from the failed MGC SHOULD be aborted.

regards,

CP

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

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

---

From: "Chirayu Patel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:55:02 +0530

1. The text is quoted from draft-ietf-megaco-h248v2-04.txt. 
2. The Nov 2004 IG for H.248.x v2 does not have a fix.
3. Wasn't aware of Annex F. Thanks. 

CP