Subject: RE: [Megaco] Service Change with Disconnect

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 07:46:27 -0400

Since Disconnected implies that the control association is being
reestablished, I believe that the MG should use the version from the
control association it is attempting to reestablish.  At that time, it
is free to attempt to renegotiate the protocol version.
 
Why, exactly, would an MG reject a Handoff to the same MGCID?  If the
MGCID is the same then it appears to me that the MG ought to accept that
Handoff and establish a new control association to the MGC.  I don't
understand your implication here with regards to the mID.
 
Kevin

________________________________

	From: B Venkat S.R Swamy
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:39 AM
	To: Stephen Mell
	Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Megaco] Service Change with Disconnect

	Hi
	
	so far we received multiple views on this issue and that's
exactly is the concern, 
	protocol should clearly identify such scenarios so that we can
have consistent implementations across different vendors and 
	there is least interop issues.
	
	BTW, in the solution suggested by you, what should be the
version in the Message Header ID(MID), 
	should it be 1, OR
	the MID received in the ServiceChange, with Disconnected method
received from MG. 
	
	there is fair possibility that MG might not accept the
ServiceChange with Handoff and its own MGCId, if the MID is other than
Disconnected message.
	
	as per the Annex F, F.3.8(MGC Initiated MG Re-Registration ),
the messsage is sent by MGC in the same control association(with version
already negotiated)
	so that the MG can re-register again and version and profile
negotiation takes place in re-registration.

	regards
	B Venkat S.R Swamy 
	Senior Technical Leader
	Flextronics Software Systems
	Phone: +91-124- 4176213
	Fax: +91-124-4300247
	web: www.flextronicssoftware.com
	 "Stephen Mell" <[email-masked]>

				"Stephen Mell"
<[email-masked]> 

				04/05/2006 10:13 PM

To

[email-masked]	

cc

[email-masked]	

Subject

RE: [Megaco] Service Change with Disconnect	

	Hi, 

	One strategy might be to refuse the SC {Method=Disconnected}
with an arbitary reason and then 
	
	force the MG to re-register by issuing a ServiceChange=Handoff,
giving its own MGCId? 
	
	The MGC can issue such a Service Change after a "transparent"
MGC failover, so I don't see why 
	
	it shouldn't issue it under these circumstances. 

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

	*********************** FSS-Restricted ***********************
	"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software

	Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the 
	individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or

	confidential information and should not be circulated or used
for 
	any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have
received 
	this message in error, please notify the originator immediately.

	If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you
are
	strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing
	the contents of this message. FSS accepts no responsibility for
	loss or damage arising from the use of the information
transmitted
	by this email including damage from virus."

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

---

From: "B Venkat S.R Swamy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:41:16 +0530

Hi

please find the comments inline[BVS]

regards

B Venkat S.R Swamy

Senior Technical Leader

Phone: +91-124- 4176213

Fax: +91-124-4300247

"Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>

"Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>

04/06/2006 05:16 PM

To

B Venkat S.R Swamy/HSS@HSS, "Stephen Mell" <[email-masked]>

cc

[email-masked], [email-masked]

Subject

[BVS] There is no doubt that MG would send the Disconnected method with the version same as

control association it is retrying to re-establish. However renegotiating the protocol version

with Disconnected method is something which is not mentioned in the protocol. Version and

profile negotiation happens only with Restart, Failover and Handoff as mentioned in Annex F 3.1 and 3.2

[/BVS]

[BVS]I am sorry, I meant version field in the message header. I am rephrasing the statement again

"there is fair possibility that MG might not accept the

ServiceChange with Handoff and its own MGCId, if the version field in the message header

is other than Disconnected message.

[/BVS]

Kevin

From: B Venkat S.R Swamy

To: Stephen Mell

Hi

exactly is the concern,

should it be 1, OR

received from MG.

Disconnected message.

already negotiated)

regards

B Venkat S.R Swamy

Senior Technical Leader

Phone: +91-124- 4176213

Fax: +91-124-4300247

"Stephen Mell"

04/05/2006 10:13 PM

To

cc

[email-masked]

Subject

Hi,

giving its own MGCId?

Megaco mailing list

[email-masked]

for

received

are

transmitted

(See attached file: graycol.gif)

(See attached file: ecblank.gif)

Megaco mailing list

[email-masked]

confidential information and should not be circulated or used for

any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received

If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are

loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted