RE: [Megaco] Re: Usage of LocalControl,Local and Remote Descripto rs!

["Kevin Boyle" <[e-mail]>]

If the concerns pointed out exist in H.248.1 v1 (03/2002), then any
corrections belong in the IG.  The intent of the RFC is to produce identical
text to the ITU-T Recommendation as much as possible, correct?

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:5N00:EXCH] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:33 AM
To: H.S.Sureshchandra
Cc: Simran Chadha; Megaco List
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Re: Usage of LocalControl,Local and Remote
Descriptors!


My apologies -- I failed to keep this somewhwere where I would remember it
when the 
time came.  The ridiculous part is that the "authors' 48 hours" actually
lasted a 
full month due to other delays.

We can do two things now: record the corrections in the Implementor's Guide,
and 
register them as errata against the RFC with the RFC Editor.  I'll work on
that today.

H.S.Sureshchandra wrote:

> Hello Tom,
> 
> I do not see incorporation of any of the observations made by my 
> colleague Simran Chadha in the new RFC 3525, as "promised" by you in 
> your earlier mail.
> 
> Please clarify. Thanks !
> 
> Suresh
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Taylor" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Simran Chadha" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Megaco List" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Megaco] Re: Usage of LocalControl,Local and Remote 
> Descriptors!
> 
> 
> 
>>That "cannot not" is a typo -- I'll remove the "not" during the 
>>"authors'
> 
> 48 hours"
> 
>>interval prior to formal publication as a new RFC.
>>
>>On your second point: the two paragraphs apply independently to
> 
> ReserveGroup and
> 
>>ReserveValue.  That is, it is possible to have ReserveGroup TRUE and
> 
> ReserveValue
> 
>>FALSE -- in which case the MG reserves for multiple session 
>>descriptions
> 
> but is
> 
>>restricted to one codec in each -- or vice versa.  Or both could be 
>>TRUE,
> 
> or both FALSE.
> 
>>On the third point, the intended meaning would be conveyed by 
>>replacing
> 
> "if it
> 
>>cannot support any of the alternatives" with "if it can support none 
>>of
> 
> the
> 
>>alternatives".  Perhaps I can also do that during the "authors' 48 
>>hours"
> 
> period,
> 
>>though we would usually do it through the ITU-T Implementor's Guide.
>>
>>The task of developing an unambiguous protocol specification is not
> 
> simple.  Your
> 
>>points have eluded others in the three years since first approval.  
>>Thank
> 
> you for
> 
>>your contribution.
>>
>>Simran Chadha wrote:
>>
>>>Hi List,
>>>
>>>Can someone please help me at the earliest on the issues raised 
>>>earlier by me - particularly, usage of LocalControl,Local and Remote 
>>>Descriptors
> 
> ?
> 
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>Simran Chadha
>>>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Simran  Chadha wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi List,
>>>>
>>>>Can you please help me with clarifications in my understanding of 
>>>>sections 7.1.7 and 7.1.8 on the use of LocalControl,Local and Remote 
>>>>Descriptors.
>>>>
>>>>As per draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-03, in section 7.1.7,
>>>>If the value of a Reserve property is True, the MG SHALL reserve 
>>>>resources for all alternatives specified in the Local and/or Remote 
>>>>descriptors for which it currently has resources available. It SHALL 
>>>>respond with the alternatives for which it reserves resources. If it 
>>>>cannot not support any of the alternatives, it SHALL respond with a 
>>>>reply to the MGC that contains empty Local and/or Remote 
>>>>descriptors. The use of two negations - "cannot not" in the last 
>>>>statement will imply that - If it can support any of the 
>>>>alternatives, it SHALL respond with a reply to the MGC that contains 
>>>>empty Local and/or Remote descriptors. I don't think this is what is 
>>>>meant to be conveyed here.
>>>>
>>>>Also in section 7.1.7 the first para starts - If the value of a 
>>>>Reserve property is True, ..... while the second para starts - If 
>>>>the value of a Reserve property is False, ....
>>>>Now as there are two Reserve properties - one Reserve Group and the
>>>>other Reserve Value, One could be False and the other could be True.
>>>>Then in this case what will be the inference - Should para 1 apply or
>>>>para 2 ? Both the paras would seem to be mutually exclusive in what is
>>>>needed to be done.
>>>>
>>>>Also statements like "if it cannot support any of the alternatives 
>>>>... " - will have two meanings. 1. Any -  Not even one - NONE of the 
>>>>alternatives is supported.
>>>>2. Any -  Atleast one   - While a few alternatives can be supported, a
>>>>few might not be.
>>>>
>>>>The protocol needs to be more clear on such aspects in the documents 
>>>>henceforth. The English language is understood in different parts of 
>>>>the world. Variations to agreed usage of the language terms will 
>>>>make it difficult for new users of Megaco protocol, like me.
>>>>
>>>>Can someone please educate me on the exact usage and meaning of 
>>>>LocalControl,Local and Remote Descriptors ?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks and awaiting comments and clarifications
>>>>
>>>>Simran Chadha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Megaco mailing list
>>>[e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Megaco mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

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