Re: [Megaco] Re: Usage of LocalControl,Local and Remote Descriptors!

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

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