Subject: RE: [Megaco] ASN-ABNF differences in H.248.1 V3

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:51:20 +0200

Venkat,

you made a good analysis and cross-check. I would appreciate if we could
safe your work.
I'm inline with comments from Kevin and Christian, ie. I do agree that your
summary requires a slight revision in order to get acceptable change
proposal inputs for IMG, and for V4 living list ("what part of your
proposal do you believe can go into an IG and what needs to wait until
H.248.1v4?").

Could you provide such a revision for our upcoming WP2/16 meeting?

Thanks,
Albrecht

                      "Kevin Boyle"                                                                                                  
                      <[email-masked]         To:      "Christian Groves" <[email-masked]>, "B Venkat S.R Swamy"     
                      om>                      <[email-masked]>                                                     
                                               cc:      megaco ietf <[email-masked]>                                                
                      17.07.2006 18:54         Subject: RE: [Megaco] ASN-ABNF differences in H.248.1 V3                              

One clarification: We can alter the syntax in the IG, but only if it is
a problem with the syntax that is a severe defect.  Syntax loops,
missing required symbols or different elements both defined as the same
symbol are good examples of issues we can fix in the IG.  Mismatches
between the ABNF and the ASN.1, inconvenient expression or items "left
out" are not issues that we can syntactically correct in the IG.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:27 PM
To: B Venkat S.R Swamy
Cc: megaco ietf
Subject: Re: [Megaco] ASN-ABNF differences in H.248.1 V3

Hello,

I agree that we should have consistency between the ASN.1 and ABNF
versions of H.248 many of the proposed changes go further than what we
can do in an implementor's guide. In an implementor's guide we can offer
clarifications of behaviour but cannot change syntax. A version update
of the protocol is needed to do this. Even when a new version is
produced it has to be done in a backwards compatible manner. So for
instance: we can't remove the OPTIONALity of a parameter in the syntax,
but we can say that from version X on this parameter is mandatory. I
believe the vice versa is true also, we can't make a mandatory parameter
suddenly be OPTIONAL in the ASN.1 (although i'd be very happy for a
ASN.1 expert to correct me on this).

In q.3/16 we do have a "living list" of items which we are collecting
for inclusion into H.248.1v4 when we decide to start working on it.

So my question is given the above explanation, what part of your
proposal do you believe can go into an IG and what needs to wait until
H.248.1v4?

Regards, Christian

B Venkat S.R Swamy wrote:

> Hi
>
> Please find attached word document capturing the differences of ASN
> and ABNF constructs in H.2481. V3(Sep 2005). The differences are
> mostly in the Individual AuditItems grammar. The aim of the document
> is to achieve the consistency in the grammar for both ASN and ABNF.
>
> Would request you all to comment on the differences, so that the
> necessary correction can be taken in V3 IG by authors.
>
>
> /(See attached file: H248.1_v3_ASN_TEXT_differences.doc)/
>
> regards
> B Venkat S.R Swamy
> Senior Technical Leader
> Flextronics Software Systems
> Phone: +91-124- 4176213
> Fax: +91-124-4300247
> web: www.flextronicssoftware.com
>
> *********************** 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
>
>

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

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

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