Subject: RE: [Megaco] Signal Descriptor Doubts

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:29:32 -0500

This is more or less the same question Alan Chou raised a week ago.  It's
not something I ever thought about, but here is the situation as I see it:
  -- the Signals Descriptor remains unchanged, even if the signal(s) it
describes have been terminated
  -- the MG is required to maintain the knowledge of which signals have been
terminated and which have not
  -- we have no way in general to indicate on audit which signals have
completed and which have not.  This was probably a mistake in design.

-----Original Message-----
From: mukta vasudeva [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Signal Descriptor Doubts

hi ,
Hope everyone had a good Christmas and will have a wonderfull new year
ahead.
I have some doubts related to Signal Descriptor handling.
1. 
  RFC Section 7.1.11 states that
"Production of a Signal on a Termination is stopped by application of 
   a new Signals Descriptor, or detection of an Event on the Termination ."
 
Also,
"A new Signals Descriptor replaces any existing Signals Descriptor."
 
Q: The MG maintains the current signal descriptor until a 
new descriptor is not sent by the MGC. But, after the termination 
finishes the  playout of the signal or an event is detected and the
 signals are stopped, the signal descriptor remains the current one
 with MG until new one is received as according to the rules we cannot
remove it until new signal descriptor is received.
 But my doubt is why should we maintain this descriptor since it has already
become deactivated(either by finishing playout or event stopped it) and MGC
cannot instruct MG to use it further ??.

Thanks ,
regards ,
Mukta Vasudeva

 Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:13:50 +1100

G'Day Tom,

I pretty much see it as you have described. I don't think there is a big
overhead in keeping the signal descriptor. You certainly need to be able to keep
it for the period of time whilst the signal is playing. So whilst it not optimal
I don't think its an error either.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:13:50 +1100

G'Day Tom,

Regards, Christian