Subject: Re: draft-ietf-megaco-merged-01.txt

From: Naren Tulpule <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:05:45 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> 1. I think that there is an error in Appendix A, step 15. The
> mId should be
> [125.125.125.111].
>
[PTT]
Certainly that would be consistent with the mId shown in step 17.

[[ NAREN ]] Is it the consensus now that
a) MID _MUST_ be unique for an MG or MGC, and treated as a logical handle
irrespective of any changes in ports etc; and
b) Virtual MGs _MUST_ distinguish themselves by a mandatory port part in the
MID; and this "IP-address/name + port" MID _MUST_ not change (as in (a)).
I am surprized the protocol designers did not fix even basic things like how
an MG or MGC identifies a peer from MID received in a message. (But perhaps
that's an "implementation detail", best left out of protocol specs :-)

[PTT]
The ABNF is more general and includes the ASN.1 as a possibility.  Basically
the ABNF allows you to use either SDP or Annex C, whereas the ASN.1 assumes
Annex C plus whatever packages come along to augment or replace it.

[[ NAREN ]] Can you please clarify how ABNF allows us to use annex C? I
thought annex C was strictly for binary encoding; and SDP for text encoding;
and that ABNF only specified text encoding. Are you allowed to embed binary
info in text? (Certainly if annex A is to be believed, we have to embed text
strings like digit maps inside the binary but now it's the other way too?)
Or do you mean some unspecified equivalent of binary ID-value pairs in text
encoding?

-- Naren.
Narendra C. Tulpule    SMTS, Trillium Digital Systems
Ph: +1-310-442-9222              Fax: +1-310-442-1162
12100 Wilshire Bl #1800         Los Angeles, CA 90025