Subject: errorDescriptor for Add Command

From: Troy Cauble <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:02:22 -0500

Hey all,

I'm trying to figure out where to put the Error Descriptor
corresponding to a failed Add command.

SHORT VERSION:

    I think ammsReply should have an Error Descriptor form.

    In the ABNF encoding, the closest errorDescriptor is
    an "auditReturnParameter" of a "terminationAudit".

    This is true in the ASN.1 encoding also.  The closest
    errorDescriptor is an "AuditReturnParameter" of a
    "TerminationAudit".

    If we disregard the construct names, the ABNF encoding
    looks pretty good.  So how significant are these
    construct names?  Should I use this form for a failed
    Add command or do we need a protocol modification?

LONG VERSION:

    Consider the transaction below.

    Transaction = 1 {
      Context = 1 {
        Add = 1 { ... },        ; succeeds
        Add = 2 { ... },        ; succeeds
        Add = 3 { ... }         ; fails
      }
    }

    Three of the 4 possible commandReplys (serviceChangeReply,
    auditReply, & notifyReply) have straightforward
    errorDescriptor forms but ammsReply doesn't.

    The following form LOOKS good, until you realize that the
    errorDescriptor is really an "auditReturnParameter" of a
    "terminationAudit".

    Reply {
      Context = 1 {
        Add = 1,
        Add = 2,
        Add = 3 { Error = 666 {} }
      }
    }

    An actionReply can have an errorDescriptor *OR* a
    commandReply (which has a list of commandReplys).  So
    another possibility is wrapping the failed errorDescriptor
    in an extra actionReply, but then you only have positional
    context to associate it with a command.

    Reply = 1 {
      Context = 1 {
        Add = 1,
        Add = 2,
      }
      Context = 1 {
        Error = 666 {}  ; Add = 3
      }
    }

    The ASN.1 combinations are different here, an ActionReply
    can have an ErrorDescriptor *AND* a list of CommandReply.
    (This is different from the ABNF!)
    So the we could stick both on one ActionReply instead
    of two and assume the ErrorDescriptor is for the Nth+1
    Command.

    Opinions?

Thanks all,
-troy

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:52:13 +1100

G'Day Troy,

I took me awhile to absorb this one. I think you need to disregard
construct names. As in the AMM case the "TerminationAudit" is also used
to return fully qualified properties that you requested a ? on. So I
don't think a protocol modification is needed.

Cheers, Christian