Subject: [Megaco] RE: MEGACO: Question about H.248.25 - bcasaddr package

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:48:50 -0400

Signals and events are different namespaces.  The ordering in one is
completely independent of the other.  Given that this has been published and
there are implementations in existence, I think it would be detrimental to
alter the ordering, especially since they are not related to each other.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Nurit Shenhar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:58 AM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3Z40:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: MEGACO: Question about H.248.25 - bcasaddr package

Hi

While looking at H.248.25 and the correction to it from the ITU site
(published at 03/2004), I found out that the list of address coding in the
'addr' event parameter and the 'addr' signal parameter is not the same. In
the signal it is:
   DTMF 0x0001
   MF   0x0002
   DP   0x0003

While in the event:
   MF   0x0001
   DTMF 0x0002
   DP   0x0003

Is it intentional? If not, can it be corrected to be the same order?

Thanks,

Nurit

****************************************************************************
********************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential material.
They are intended solely for the use of the designated individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination,use, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

If you have received this email in error please notify
[email-masked] and permanently delete the e-mail and files.

****************************************************************************
*******************************

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

---

From: Carsten Waitzmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:59:52 +0200

<<< No Message Collected >>>

---

From: Carsten Waitzmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:59:52 +0200

Hi,

A MGW with transmission ports houses mulitple "network terminations" 
(terminology according to E.11 network package).
The terminology of network termination is exclusivly used in the textual 
description of this package, thus one could conclude that this packet 
applies to:
- Packet (IP, ATM or possibly others) *network terminations* as well as
- Switched Circuit *network terminations*.
Looking to the package itself, it looks to me that the intention of the 
package is in fact more packet network termination related.
Is it allowed to apply the package for switched circuit network 
terminations as well?
If not, my suggestion is to add "packet" to the description: "This 
package defines properties of *packet* network terminations independent 
of network type".

The network package defines properties, events and statistics. The 
netfail event especially is used to notify per termination (if the MGC 
previously has subscribed for) the MGC "upon detection of a failure due 
to external or internal network reasons".
Assuming that a transmission port of the MGW fails the MG will send a 
bunch of netfail events related to all concerned network terminations. 
Additionally I assume that the MG will notify the MGC by means of 
ServiceChange (Method=Forced, Reason=transmission failure) for all 
concerned network terminations.
Is a netfail event subscription by the MGC making it obsolete for the MG 
to send ServiceChange?
If not, what is in general the added value of the netfail event compared 
to an anyhow sent ServiceChange notification?

thanks
Carsten