Subject: RE: [Megaco] ServiceChange command usage

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 04:30:02 -0500

Comments inline. [KJBII]

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Gillian Wang
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] ServiceChange command usage

Hi All,

The ServiceChange command can be used either MG-->MGC or MGC-->MG direction.

My first question is for taking a termination out of/in service, is MGC
allowed to send a ServiceChange request to MG? or only MG is allowed to
initiate the command?
[KJBII] Yes, the MGC can send ServiceChange commands to take terminations
in/out of service.

Second question, in case that the MG is about to send a group of
terminations (subrack1/slot2/1, subrack1/slot2/2, ....subrack1/slot2/12)
within a whole card out of service, including both idle and busy ones, which
Context ID is to be used? NULL plus ALL or NULL plus specific context ids
for specific terminations?

T=1{C=-{SC=subrack1/slot2/*{....}}, C=*{SC=subrack1/slot2/*{....}}}; or

T=1{C=-{SC=subrack1/slot2/*{....}), C=2{SC=subrack1/slot2/1{..}},
C=3{SC=subrack1/slot2/5{..}}};

[KJBII] Either way is acceptable, though the first will result in a smaller
message.  Through the use of the W- flag, the reply to the first message can
also be made significantly smaller.

Any other ways for only the termination IDs matching rather than context IDs
consideration?

Thanks
Gillian

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

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