Mr. Holm and others,
In Osaka it was suggested during the discussion of TD-54a (Draft Annex M.2, ISUP tunneling) that a new ReleaseCompleteReason is needed to support tunnelling. The reason would indicate that the called endpoint is dropping the call because it rejects tunnelling and the tunnellingRequired flag was set in the Setup message.
My notes indicate that I was to look into whether this was needed in H.225.0 v4. The existing reasons are:
ReleaseCompleteReason ::= CHOICE { noBandwidth NULL, -- bandwidth taken away or ARQ denied gatekeeperResources NULL, -- exhausted unreachableDestination NULL, -- no transport path to the destination destinationRejection NULL, -- rejected at destination invalidRevision NULL, noPermission NULL, -- called party's gatekeeper rejects unreachableGatekeeper NULL, -- terminal cannot reach gatekeeper for ARQ gatewayResources NULL, badFormatAddress NULL, adaptiveBusy NULL, -- call is dropping due to LAN crowding inConf NULL, -- no address in AlternativeAddress undefinedReason NULL, ..., facilityCallDeflection NULL, -- call was deflected using a Facility message securityDenied NULL, -- incompatible security settings calledPartyNotRegistered NULL, -- used by gatekeeper when endpoint has -- preGrantedARQ to bypass ARQ/ACF callerNotRegistered NULL, -- used by gatekeeper when endpoint has -- preGrantedARQ to bypass ARQ/ACF newConnectionNeeded NULL, -- indicates that the Setup was not accepted on this -- connection, but that the Setup may be accepted on -- a new connection nonStandardReason NonStandardParameter, replaceWithConferenceInvite ConferenceIdentifier -- call dropped due to subsequent -- invitation to a conference -- (see H.323 8.4.3.8) }
So I'll ask ... is a new reason needed?
If so, Mr. Holm's draft contains an editor's note that suggests a reason code of "tunnelRejected". Should I incorporate that value as a ReleaseCompleteReason?
If so, what Q.931/Q.850 mapping should I add to Table 5/H.225.0 for this reason? Some suggestions:
63 - Service or option not available, unspecified 88 - Incompatible destination 111 - Interworking, unspecified
Thanks, Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard K. Bowen Cisco Systems, Inc. VoIP Session Protocols Research Triangle Park, NC, USA --------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com