Re: [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity
"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 13:04 UTC
Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50BA1A02AD for <megaco@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:04:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3QQEHzZLM00 for <megaco@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoemail1.alcatel.com (hoemail1.alcatel.com [192.160.6.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053971A023E for <megaco@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by hoemail1.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s26D4VIN009758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:04:33 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s26D4VIG025569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:04:31 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.116]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:04:30 +0100
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>, Tommy Young <tommy@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity
Thread-Index: Ac85GqpEIHUnqj60QJOXlTrkGSHfkwAGN4KAAAIwQ3A=
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:04:29 +0000
Message-ID: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC1AB736@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC1AB281@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <53187133.1020208@nteczone.com>
In-Reply-To: <53187133.1020208@nteczone.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/megaco/xk7kyIhg9E-Ff9nYPNur73giEwg
Cc: "megaco@ietf.org" <megaco@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity
X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Gateway Control <megaco.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/megaco>, <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/>
List-Post: <mailto:megaco@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>, <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:04:58 -0000
Hello Christian, > With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tied that capability to a package. We had the same idea. The "~" as advanced wildcarding capability would definetely match the scope of an "advanced SDP wildcarding package". BR, Albrecht -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves@nteczone.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:00 To: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); Tommy Young Cc: megaco@ietf.org Subject: Re: [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity Hello Albrecht, OK I see your point, the usage of "recursion" doesn't meet mathematical/logic definition. I'm OK to rename it. Maybe the "multiple value response" wildcard? With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tied that capability to a package. Regards, Christian On 6/03/2014 8:01 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote: > Hello Christian, Tommy, > thanks for the package proposal, a good solution for the related problem in our opinion. > > One pre-meeting comment concerning terminology, because possibly caused by us. We were also struggling (when working on AVD-4504) with the editor's note concerning "recursion", but couldn't remember a real example. > > If we consider a single SDP line, then recursion would be a structure like "X = Y ... X ...", right? > However, such SDP line grammar is not possible. > > If we consider line interlinkage, then a circular definition could be e.g. > X = Y ... > Y = X ... > But again, such SDP line grammars are not possible. > > Thus, perhaps we should term the "$R" wildcard as "multiplicity wildcard" or sth similar, but not "recursive wildcard". > Or "cardinality wildcard" ... hm? > > What do you think? > Albrecht > > > Ref.: > AVD-4538 H.248.39 Updates: Additional wildcarding > AVD-4504 H.248.39 (Rev.): Wildcard "~" - Continuation of discussion > >
- [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Pack… Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
- Re: [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding … Christian Groves
- Re: [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding … Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)