Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent terminations

["Chuong N. Nguyen" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, just like you suggested it before instead of snagging it for
TDM package.
Snagg it for the SDP for TDM draft.


Carl Rutter wrote:

> I'm confused, are you talking about section 5.6.3.2 of RFC 3108?I know
> there was discussion about snagging this but that is for ATMright
> now.Carl
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Chuong N. Nguyen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>      Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 3:58 PM
>      To: [e-mail]
>      Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent
>      terminations
>      Doesn't the following cover this already?
>
>      5.6.3.2 The 'silenceSupp' attribute
>
>         When present, the 'silenceSupp' attribute is used to
>      indicate the use
>         or non-use of silence suppression.  The format of the
>      'silenceSupp'
>         media attribute line is as follows:
>
>         a=silenceSupp: <silenceSuppEnable> <silenceTimer>
>      <suppPref> <sidUse>
>                         <fxnslevel>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Carl Rutter wrote:
>
>     > All good questions another I would add is:If we use SDP
>     > for TDM going forward how is silence suppression
>     > implemented?
>     > Carl
>     >
>     >      -----Original Message-----
>     >      From: Chuong N. Nguyen
>     >      [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     >      Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 3:41 PM
>     >      To: [e-mail]
>     >      Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors
>     >      and Permanent terminations
>     >
>     >
>     >      I thought the reason that we decided to have SDP
>     >      TDM is to get away from TDM package
>     >      to be more inline w/how we specify RTP
>     >      termination characteristics.
>     >      Also to reuse the good stuffs from RTP/ATM SDP.
>     >
>     >      I guess we can start by asking the questions
>     >
>     >      1) Can we live w/o the TDM package?
>     >      2) Can we just use SDP for TDM going forward?
>     >      3) For backward compatibility, just leave TDM
>     >      package as is and don't extend it anymore.
>     >
>     >      For the TDM package, echo control is understood
>     >      but the Gain control is not quite right.
>     >      I have discussed the Gain control before and
>     >      gotten nowhere.
>     >
>     >      Gain control is also defined in the SDP for ATM
>     >      which seems more correct.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >      Carl Rutter wrote:
>     >
>     >      > Chuong,There was several ideas bouncing around
>     >      > but I don't believethere was any closure.
>     >      > There is a hole for G711 since we can't
>     >      > use annexa or annexb.Lifting the support in RFC
>     >      > 3108, section 5.6.3.2 and putting it intothe
>     >      > TDM Circuit Package would give us a lot of
>     >      > flexibility.Here are the ideas I know of:1)
>     >      >
>     >      > Another option is to extend the TDM Circuit
>     >      > Package (which has been
>     >      >
>     >      > previously discussed on the list). The TDM
>     >      > Cicruit Package
>     >      >
>     >      > currently has Gain and Echo Control as its
>     >      > properties. So, it's logical
>     >      >
>     >      > (IMO) for Silence Suppression to be part of the
>     >      > package as
>     >      >
>     >      > well. In fact, it looks like an oversight that
>     >      > it was missed off in the
>     >      >
>     >      > first place.
>     >      >
>     >      > Regards,
>     >      >
>     >      > Wayne Cutler
>     >      >
>     >      > 2)
>     >      >
>     >      > Another possibility is to use payload 13 as
>     >      > defined in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-05.  E.g.:
>     >      >
>     >      > Media={Stream=1{ Local {
>     >      > v=0
>     >      > c=IN IP4 $
>     >      > m=audio $ RTP/AVP 0 13
>     >      > }}}
>     >      >
>     >      > David Barr
>     >      >
>     >      > 3)
>     >      >
>     >      > I'm starting to think that the answer may be to
>     >      > use the a=silenceSupp
>     >      > attribute defined in RFC 3108, section 5.6.3.2.
>     >      >
>     >      > Tom Taylor
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      > Carl
>     >      >
>     >      >      -----Original Message-----
>     >      >      From: Chuong N. Nguyen
>     >      >      [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     >      >      Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:59 PM
>     >      >
>     >      >      Cc: [e-mail]
>     >      >      Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote
>     >      >      descriptors and Permanent
>     >      >      terminations
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >      So what was that discussion about
>     >      >      adding silence suppression to TDM
>     >      >      package?
>     >      >
>     >      >      Do we use SDP TDM or TDM package or
>     >      >      both?
>     >      >      Or even worse combination of both
>     >      >      within 1 command w/some parameters
>     >      >      defined by TDM package and
>     >      >      some parameters defined by SDP TDM.
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >      Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>     >      >
>     >      >     >  As I noted earlier, you do need to
>     >      >     >  specify the properties in the NAS
>     >      >     >  case.
>     >      >     >  The SDP TDM draft has certainly had
>     >      >     >  time to ripen, and I will reissue
>     >      >     >  it and
>     >      >     >  the NAS packages within the next
>     >      >     >  week.
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  -----Original Message-----
>     >      >     >  From: Chuong N. Nguyen
>     >      >     >  [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     >      >     >  Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:48
>     >      >     >  PM
>     >      >     >  To: [e-mail]
>     >      >     >  Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote
>     >      >     >  descriptors and Permanent
>     >      >     >  terminations
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  I don't know about the sendrecv
>     >      >     >  issue here.
>     >      >     >  I don't know what you mean by SDP
>     >      >     >  parameters are of no significance
>     >      >     >  in case
>     >      >     >  of phy. term.
>     >      >     >  Tom wrote the SDP TDM draft which I
>     >      >     >  wonder what is the status of this
>     >      >     >  draft.
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  But I can't remember now whether it
>     >      >     >  was intended to be used in local or
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  localControl Descriptor.
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  Madhu Babu Brahmanapally wrote:
>     >      >     >  HI Rajesh/All,
>     >      >     >  Not all parameters might be useful
>     >      >     >  for the MG/MGC in case of physical
>     >      >     >  terminations. The SDP parameters
>     >      >     >  are of no significance in case of
>     >      >     >  physical
>     >      >     >  terminations (in normal scenario).
>     >      >     >  Hence the mode was set to
>     >      >     >  "sendrecv"
>     >      >     >  without specifying the local/remote
>     >      >     >  descriptor information.
>     >      >     >  Regards
>     >      >     >  Madhubabu
>     >      >     >  -----Original Message-----
>     >      >     >  From: [e-mail]
>     >      >     >  [mailto:[e-mail]]On
>     >      >     >  Behalf Of
>     >      >     >  Rajesh N
>     >      >     >  Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:32
>     >      >     >  AM
>     >      >     >  To: [e-mail]
>     >      >     >  Subject: [Megaco] Local/Remote
>     >      >     >  descriptors and Permanent
>     >      >     >  terminations
>     >      >     >  Hi,
>     >      >     >  Sometime back there was a thread
>     >      >     >  regarding usage of SendRecv mode
>     >      >     >  for an
>     >      >     >  ephemeral termination, when Remote
>     >      >     >  Descriptor values are yet to be
>     >      >     >  defined.
>     >      >     >  And one of the choices for the MG
>     >      >     >  in such a situation is to reply
>     >      >     >  back with
>     >      >     >  error 411, "missing remote or local
>     >      >     >  descriptor".
>     >      >     >  I would like to know, what is the
>     >      >     >  significance of this problem w.r.to
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  permanent terminations. The example
>     >      >     >  call flow in the draft shows a
>     >      >     >  Modify
>     >      >     >  request for a permanent
>     >      >     >  termination, from MGC to MG1, in
>     >      >     >  which mode is set
>     >      >     >  as SendRecv and  the Local
>     >      >     >  descriptor values alone are being
>     >      >     >  provided.
>     >      >     >  Are local and remote descriptors
>     >      >     >  relevant for physical terminations?
>     >      >     >  If
>     >      >     >  yes, where should I get the values
>     >      >     >  from?
>     >      >     >  Thanks
>     >      >     >  Regards,
>     >      >     >  Rajesh N
>     >      >     >  ________
>     >      >     >  ______________________________________
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  Megaco mailing list
>     >      >     >  [e-mail]
>     >      >     >  https://www1.ie
>     >      >     >  f.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>     >      >     >  ---
>     >      >     >  [This E-mail was scanned for
>     >      >     >  viruses and is clean.]
>     >      >     >  ______________________
>     >      >     >  ________________________
>     >      >     >  Megaco mailing list
>     >      >     >  [e-mail]
>     >      >     >  https://www1.ie
>     >      >     >  f.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>     >      >     >  --
>     >      >     >    Alcatel USA, Inc
>     >      >     >  Internet:
>     >      >     >  [e-mail]
>     >      >     >    1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas
>     >      >     >  75075           Phone:    (972)
>     >      >     >  519-4613
>     >      >     >    **** The opinions expressed are
>     >      >     >  not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>     >      >     >
>     >      >
>     >      >      --
>     >      >        Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
>     >      >        1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
>     >      >        **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      --
>     >        Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
>     >        1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
>     >        **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>     >
>     >
>     >
>      --
>        Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
>        1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
>        **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>
>
>
--
  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [e-mail]
  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    [phone]
  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****