Subject: [Megaco] Clarification Of Multiplex Descriptor Text

From: "Tom-PT Taylor"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:46:03 -0500

I mentioned that several of us have been discussing additional text for
Multiplex Descriptors.  I have placed the proposed text as marked up changes
in the Megaco FTP site.  According to your taste, you can download
ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/Current/MuxDescription_with_N
x64K.doc
or
ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/Current/MuxDescription_with_N
x64K.pdf

Based on my reply to Christer Holm yesterday (see "LCN Mapping"), this
proposed text needs a further update.  The supporting bearers contained by a
multiplexing termination can be ephemeral as well as physical.  However, I
believe it would be essential that any ephemrals mentioned in a MUX
descriptor already exist in the context, since their properties are probably
not directly inferrable from those of the multiplexing termination.

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

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

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:04:00 +0200

Hi,

>x64K.doc or ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/Current/MuxDescription_with_N
>x64K.pdf
> 

Well, it depends on how it will be done. If something (a RTP
termination, for example) is added LATER, that part of the MUX
properties could be unspecified first, and then maybe changed using
MODIFY when the RTP termination is added... But, before going into that,
I think we should decided how to do the mapping in the first place.

Thanks for your comments!

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:04:00 +0200

Hi,

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:31:03 +0200

Hi,

I have read the document a few times, but even by having stream
descriptors in the mux termination, I still don't understand how each of
those stream descriptors are mapped to specific LNCs. Is the StreamID
supposed to be the same as the LCN number, or how is the mapping done?

A very simple solution would be to add a "LCN property" (to the H.324
package, I assume) which would be used in the each stream descriptor to
specify to which LCN it is mapped. 

Comments?

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:31:03 +0200

Hi,

Comments?

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:09:13 +1100

G'Day Christer,

I think that the H.324 package probably needs to be updated to say how
this is done. I don't think its a core H.248 issue. Perhaps an IG note
could be added for the H324 package? I'd like to see a reply from the
H324 package authors on how they thought this was to be done.

Are there any updates you'd like to see to proposed text on
MultiplexDescriptors that Tom posted?

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:09:13 +1100

G'Day Christer,

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:51:36 +0200

Hi,

>this is done. I don't think its a core H.248 issue.

I agree. The idea was that this property would be defined in the H.324
package, and then used within each stream descriptor in the Mux
Termination.

>Perhaps an IG note could be added for the H324 package? I'd like to see a reply from the

>Are there any updates you'd like to see to proposed text on MultiplexDescriptors that Tom posted?

First, as Tom already mentioned, it should be updated so that it also
includes emphemeral bearer terminations (RTP terminations, for example).

Second, it should in detail, on a message level, describe how the
multiplexed connection is set up. Now it only says "use a stream
descriptor" - which means everyone is going to understand it their own
way, and we are going to have lots of interop problems when people start
implementing this :)

Third, it should also describe in detail how the H.223 (or whatever
multiplex method is used) descriptor is used, ie which terminations are
included etc, depending on on which "side" of the multiplexer the
terminations are.

Fourth, I think the whole Annex M.4 misses some things, but that's
another discussion...

I understand if you want to get this document ready before february, but
please let us do this correct from the beginning :)

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:51:36 +0200

Hi,

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland