Subject: [Megaco] Error code 435

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:06:44 +0200

Hello,

I have a questions regarding error code 435 as described in H248.8:

"4.2.16 Error Code #: 435 Name: Termination ID is not in specified Context

Definition:  A  specific  TerminationID  specified  in  a Modify, Subtract,
AuditValue, AuditCapabilities, or ServiceChange command does not exist in a
specified context and therefore the command is disregarded."

1. "specified Context" - does it include wildcard "*"

2. consider the following example:

Transaction=206{

Context=*{AuditValue=line/1{Audit{media,packages,observedevents}}}
}

In case that the termination is not in any context should the MG respond
with error 435? or there is another error code more suitable for this case?

Thanks, Aliza

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

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:01:12 -0500

I would say that the error code is also appropriate for wildcard.  The wildcard 
has the semantics of a sequence of individual contexts, not a collection of them. 
  This means you get an error response 435 from every context but the one (if any) 
in which line/1 resides.  You probably don't want to issue commands like that.

-- 
Tom Taylor
Carrier VoIP Standards Development
Nortel
Phone +1 613 763 1496  (ESN 393-1496)
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:49:01 -0500

Per latest spec this command will return only one context termination
currently exist in, if any, or error 435.

7.2.5 AuditValue
...
    ContextID TerminationID Information Obtained
    All       Specific      (Non-null) ContextID in which the
                             Termination currently exists

Regards,
         Aleks

At 09:01 AM 1/12/2005, Tom Taylor wrote:
>I would say that the error code is also appropriate for wildcard.  The 
>wildcard has the semantics of a sequence of individual contexts, not a 
>collection of them.  This means you get an error response 435 from every 
>context but the one (if any) in which line/1 resides.  You probably don't 
>want to issue commands like that.
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:54:49 +1100

Hello

Back in the April Q.3 Meeting we accepted the following for inclusion into 
H.248.8 (AVD-2467). The additions discuss error code 430 & 435 in more detaiil 
ie. the underlying reason why the termination cannot be found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2.11	Error Code #: 430 Name: Unknown TerminationID
Definition: The TerminationID refered to by the command is unknown and the 
command is therefore disregarded. The termination ID is not anywhere in the 
(virtual) MGW. This includes the NULL context. This is generated when the MG 
doesn't know which termination the MGC is trying to address.
Package: –
Reference: –
Error Text in the error Descriptor: The TerminationID is included in the error 
text in the error descriptor
Comment: –
…

4.2.16	Error Code #: 435 Name: Termination ID is not in specified Context
Definition: A specific TerminationID specified in a Modify, Subtract, 
AuditValue, AuditCapabilities, or ServiceChange command does not exist in a 
specified context and therefore the command is disregarded. This error occurs 
when the MGC sends a command with a valid TerminationID that is not in the 
specified contextID. This is used when the MG has a record of the termination 
but it is not where the MGC says it is.
Package: –
Reference: –
Error Text in error descriptor: The ContextID where the termination is located 
isare included in the error text in the error descriptor.
Comment: –
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So depending on the type of termination "line/1" is then you would use 430 or 
435 as appropriate.

Regards, Christian

PS: Kevin - this seems to be missed in the lastest H.248.8 amendment 2.

Aleksandr Ryabin wrote:

>> collection of them.  This means you get an error response 435 from 
>> every context but the one (if any) in which line/1 resides.  You 
>> probably don't want to issue commands like that.
>>