Subject: ServiChangeReply definition question?

From: Marko Onikki <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:33:45 +0200

Hi, to everyone!

Could someone tell to me is in MEGACO/H.248 v.15 specification error in
ServiceChangeReply definition?

ServiChangeReply is defined like this:

ServiceChangeReply ::= SEQUENCE

{

        terminationID                   TerminationIDList,

        serviceChangeResult             ServiceChangeResult,    -->>
ServiceChangeResult OPTIONAL

        ...

}

-- For ServiceChangeResult, no parameters are mandatory.  Hence the

-- distinction between ServiceChangeParm and ServiceChangeResParm.

My opinion is that ServiceChangeResult should be OPTIONAL part because
ServiChangeResult is divided to CHOICE structure

ServiceChangeResult ::= CHOICE

{

        errorDescriptor                 ErrorDescriptor,

        serviceChangeResParms           ServiceChangeResParm

}

ServiceChangeResParm ::= SEQUENCE

{

        serviceChangeMgcId      MId OPTIONAL,

        serviceChangeAddress    ServiceChangeAddress OPTIONAL,

        serviceChangeVersion    INTEGER(0..99) OPTIONAL,

serviceChangeProfile    ServiceChangeProfile OPTIONAL

}

and if ServiceChangeResParm is choosed there migth not be any data at all in
ServiceChangeResParm because ServiceChangeResParm consist only from OPTIONAL
parts.

Br,

Marko Onikki
Nokia Networks
E-mail. [email-masked]

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:40:11 -0500

Basically the point you are making is that the ServiceChangeReply could
contain an empty serviceChangeResult, and this is inefficient compared with
making serviceChangeResult optional.  I note that the corresponding ABNF
requires at least one parameter in serviceChangeReplyDescriptor.

In fact, none of the serviceChangeReplyDescriptor parameters are meaningful
when a non-ROOT termination is involved.  I think we should therefore adopt
your suggestion and simply make serviceChangeResult optional (with
corresponding fixes to the ABNF).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marko Onikki [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:34 AM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      ServiChangeReply definition question?
>
> Hi, to everyone!
>

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:51:58 -0500

Oops.  Got confused in reading the ABNF.  serviceChangeReplyDescriptor is
optional in the ABNF already.  We can do the same for the ASN.1, but it's
not going to change the meaning of any messages.

> From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904:EXCH]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:40 PM
> To:   [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject:      RE: ServiChangeReply definition question?
>
> contain an empty serviceChangeResult, and this is inefficient compared
> with making serviceChangeResult optional.  I note that the corresponding
> ABNF requires at least one parameter in serviceChangeReplyDescriptor.
>
> In fact, none of the serviceChangeReplyDescriptor parameters are
> meaningful when a non-ROOT termination is involved.  I think we should
> therefore adopt your suggestion and simply make serviceChangeResult
> optional (with corresponding fixes to the ABNF).
>