Subject: [Megaco] Protocol version negotiation

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:27:22 -0400

Section 11.3 on protocol negotiation, describes the behavior of MGC 
specifying explicitly that it return version in the response for two cases:
1) MGC supports only a lower version than that proposed by MG
2) MGC supports a higher version but can support the version proposed by MG.
I believe by extension that MGC should also return version in the case 
where
3) MGC supports ONLY the same version proposed by MG
but this is not actually stated.  MG of course could not know the 
difference between #2 and #3.  I suppose that an MG receiving a response 
with no version should assume that the version proposed is being 
accepted but of course this would have worked for #2 as well. The 
question is, is omission equivalent to returning the equal value.

Do we believe that MGC MUST always return a version in its response and 
if so should we reword the first two paragraphs of 11.3 to make this 
clear, OR are we satisfied this leaving it optional in case #3.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:732.949.5628   Fax:732.949.7016
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2G-219A, 101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

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

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:46:28 +1000

G'Day Terry,

I don't know why the MGC MUST return the version. The text currently does not
state this. The MGC can either not return the version (acceptance of the MG
signalled version) or reply with the same version of the MG signalled version.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:46:28 +1000

G'Day Terry,

Regards, Christian

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:10:21 -0400

>signalled version) or reply with the same version of the MG signalled version.
I agree that there is no statement that it MUST return the version. 
 It's just that all the other cases are mentioned explicitly (and all 
these DO require version) and so it is somewhat odd to omit the one that 
is perhaps the most common (at least now).  We certainly have the choice 
to leave things as they are so that returning version is optional.  I 
just think that describing all but one case leads to confusion, but if 
no one else is concerned (and agrees that returning version is optional 
for this case) I will drop it.  

--

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:10:21 -0400

--

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:48:27 -0400

Hi,

I agree that returning version is optional.
Although I also agree with Terry that it is odd to describe all, but one case.
Perhaps it would be good to include the case explicitly (even if it might
look intuitive what it means) to avoid any confusion.

Thanks,
         Aleks

At 10:10 AM 7/24/2002, Terry L Anderson wrote:

>I agree that there is no statement that it MUST return the version. It's 
>just that all the other cases are mentioned explicitly (and all these DO 
>require version) and so it is somewhat odd to omit the one that is perhaps 
>the most common (at least now).  We certainly have the choice to leave 
>things as they are so that returning version is optional.  I just think 
>that describing all but one case leads to confusion, but if no one else is 
>concerned (and agrees that returning version is optional for this case) I 
>will drop it.
>
>>Regards, Christian
>>
>>Terry L Anderson wrote:
>>
>>

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:48:27 -0400

Hi,

Thanks,
         Aleks