Subject: [Fwd: Issues in V16 Draft]

From: Shalini Philip <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:56:01 +0530

Hello all,
        I did not get any response to the earlier mail. So I am resending it.

    There is some clarification required on some of the latest changes
in V16 draft. They are:

1. Section 11.2 on Cold Start says that :
    "Upon failure to obtain a reply, either from the Primary MGC, or a
designated successor, the MG tries its pre-provisioned Secondary MGCs,
in order. If the MG is unable to comply and it has established a
transport connection to the MGC, it should close that connection. In any
event, it should reject all subsequent requests from the MGC with Error
406 Version Not Supported."
The situation of MG not being able to comply and sending errors of
Version not supported, seems to be appropriate only for the case of
Version negotiation failure and not as a general case. If MG is unable
to comply due to some other reason, then the appropriate error should be
returned.

2. In Section 7.2.5, it is clarified that if DigitMap is requested in an
AuditValue command with TerminationID ALL, then all the digit maps
defined in the gateway are returned. Since only the digit map names are
getting returned here, it would not be possible to return those digit
maps specified by MGC as part of the Event Descriptor, since they do not
have names associated with them.

Regards,

Shalini Philip
Ficon Technology
E-Mail : mailto:[email-masked]
Web    : http://www.ficon-tech.com

---

From: John Segers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:03:09 +0100

Philip,

Some response this time.  Please see below.

John

> to comply due to some other reason, then the appropriate error should be

I checked back in my notes from the ITU meeting and before, and found
out that the offending text has been introduced in January (on the
24th).  I don't remember who suggested the change at that time.  All I
remember is that there was a request to put in text about the error
message to be returned.  Even for that purpose, the text looks strange
(what does "comply" refer to?).  Suggestions?

> have names associated with them.

For the case that one termination is addressed, the text reads
"DigitMapDescriptor returns the name or value of the current DigitMap
for the Termination.", which I interpreted as: if the DM has a name, the
name is returned, otherwise the value.  I have to admit that the text is
not very clear, but your assumption that only names can be returned does
not seem right.

--
John Segers                                  email: [email-masked]
Lucent Technologies                                        Room HE 306
Dept. Forward Looking Work                      phone: +31 35 687 4724
P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA  Huizen                      fax: +31 35 687 5954

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:03:59 -0500

> (what does "comply" refer to?).  Suggestions?

I made the same comment and I think you are looking at Section 11.3, not 11.2. The
change got introduced in v16, and when you look at a similar change made in Section
11.3 it seems like a simple editorial mistake. If it's not, discussion is clearly
needed.

> not very clear, but your assumption that only names can be returned does

There is however another issue of shadowing between the root termination and other
terminations.

> > Web    : http://www.ficon-tech.com

-- Flemming

--
Flemming Andreasen
Cisco Systems

---

From: Shalini Philip <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:03:59 +0530

Hello John,
    Thanks for your response. Please find my comments embedded below.

> (what does "comply" refer to?).  Suggestions?

The same text of MG not being able to comply due to version mismatch and sending
the error of "Version not Supported" is already mentioned in Section 11.3. So IMO,
the same text in Section 11.2 should be removed.

> not very clear, but your assumption that only names can be returned does

Looking at the ABNF, the Digit map descriptor  requires Digit map name as a
mandatory field. So how will DMs specified without a name be returned in the Audit
Reply?

--
Regards,

Shalini Philip
Ficon Technology

---

From: John Segers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:51:11 +0100

Flemming Andreasen wrote:
[snip]
> 11.3 it seems like a simple editorial mistake. If it's not, discussion is clearly

I agree that it is better to remove the text than to leave it in.

> There is however another issue of shadowing between the root termination and other

I think that the digit maps defined on the root termination should only
be returned as being defined on root.  There does not seem to be a need
to return the same digit map for all individual terminations too.

John

---

From: John Segers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:03:52 +0100

Shalini Philip wrote:
[snip]
> the same text in Section 11.2 should be removed.

I agree with you and Flemming that this is the best thing to do.

> mandatory field. So how will DMs specified without a name be returned in the Audit

Good point.  There doesn't seem to be a way of returning only a value
(neither in ABNF, nor in ASN.1).  It seems that we have to change the
ABNF and ASN.1 to something like

digitMapDescriptor = DigitMapToken EQUAL
                     ( (LBRKT digitMapValue RBRKT)
                     / (digitMapname [ LBRKT digitMapValue RBRKT ])
                     )
and

DigitMapDescriptor ::= SEQUENCE
{
        digitMapName    DigitMapName OPTIONAL,
        digitMapValue   DigitMapValue OPTIONAL
}

Comments?

John

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:14:53 -0800

> to return the same digit map for all individual terminations too.

Yes - please ignore my shadowing comment.

-- Flemming

---

From: Abdallah Rayhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:08:06 -0500

See comments below.

Shalini Philip wrote:

<snip>

> mandatory field. So how will DMs specified without a name be returned in the Audit

What is more troubling is  "name or value" how do you request this
or that ? The MGC may request only values as it might not care about
names, or only names and no values or may be both in addition to values
that have no names. If you leave it to the MG, it wont be right.T
here should be away to say :
1- send me only names, ; I dont care if some values are excluded
2- send me only values,  All DMs are included
3- send me whatever you got ; send me everything named or valued.

Abdallah Rayhan