Subject: [Megaco] Megaco Contribution Regarding H.248v2

From: "Tom-PT Taylor"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:52:34 -0500

I am sending the following contribution to the ITU-T on behalf of Megaco.
This will be in addition to any points Terry Anderson and Marcello Pantaleo
pick up in their Editors' drafts.

TITLE:	Communication From IETF Megaco Working Group: Comments On H.248v2
___________________

INTRODUCTION

This communication conveys observations on H.248 version 2 which the IETF
Megaco Working Group would like Q. 3/16 to act upon before approving the
updated Recommendation.  The Working Group has identified two points:

·	The Working Group consensus is that the introduction of context
packages would be premature at this point, and accordingly they should not
be included in H.248v2.

·	On a more specific level, the new table in section 7.2.9 erroneously
indicates that an audit with contextID ALL always returns a response which
is the union of responses across all contexts.  This is inconsistent with
existing text in section 7.2.5, which requires specific tagging ("W-" in the
text encoding) to obtain a union of responses across individual entities.

CONTEXT PACKAGES

The Megaco Working Group asks that the proposal to allow context packages be
removed from the H.248v2 text.  The basic concern is the potential impact on
the coherence of the protocol.  There is a view that no requirement has yet
been demonstrated for further context properties, let alone an open-ended
capability to define such properties.

The Megaco request requires the following changes to H.248v2 (as reflected
in TD-47 out of the Dublin meeting):

·	delete final bullet of section 6.1.1
·	delete final sentence of first paragraph of section 6.2.3
·	delete second sentence of second paragraph of section 6.2.3
·	delete the phrase "or Context" from the last sentence of second
paragraph of section 6.2.3
·	delete section 7.1.19 Context Attribute Descriptor and renumber the
subsequent section(s) accordingly
·	in section 7.2.9, remove references to ContextAttribute Descriptor
as follows:
o	in the third paragraph, amend the final sentence to say "There are
two types of audit."
o	in the paragraphs beginning "Value Audit:" and "Capabilities
Audit:", delete the phrase "the ContextAttribute Descriptor or"
o	delete the paragraph beginning "Packages Audit"
o	delete the Audit Packages column of the table
·	delete the phrase "and contexts" in the first paragraph of section
12
·	delete the sentence beginning "ContextAttribute is for ..." and also
the final sentence of the paragraph explaining "Defined in:" in section
12.1.2
·	delete the final sentence of the paragraph explaining
"Characteristics:" in section 12.1.2
·	in Annex A:
o	delete the contextProp and contextPackages components added after
the extension marker in the ContextRequest production
o	delete the contextPropAud, contextAttrDescriptorCapAud,
contextPropCapAud, and contextPackagesAud components added after the
extension marker in the ContextAttrAuditRequest production
·	in Annex B:
o	delete the contextAttrDescriptor and packagesDescriptor terms from
the contextProperty production
o	delete the IndAudcontextAttrDescriptor, ContextAttrDescriptorCapAud,
IndAudContextAttrCap, and ContextAttrPackages terms from the
contextAuditProperties production
o	delete the IndAudContextAttrCap, ContextAttrPackages, and
ContextAttrDescriptorCapAud productions
o	delete the contextAttrDescriptor production
o	delete the ContextAttrToken, ContextAudCapToken,
ContextAudDescriptorToken, and ContextAudValToken productions

CONTEXT AUDITS WITH WILDCARD

New text in section 7.2.9 indicates the results expected when context
properties are audited.  One case dealt with is that when the contextID
specified is ALL.  The table indicates that the audit response will be the
union of results over all contexts.  This is inconsistent with section
7.2.5, which allows the MGC explicit control over the form of the response.
The default response is that results are listed in multiple actionReplys.  A
union of responses is obtained only if the "W-" tag or the binary equivalent
is used.
Megaco requests that the table of section 7.2.9 be corrected to indicate
that results for an ALL contextID are presented through an actionReply per
context unless the W- tag or its binary equivalent is used.

Tom Taylor
[email-masked]
Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

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