Re: Description of URQ??
Hello, I asked this a while ago, but with no success. So, let's try again... This is about callSignalAddress in URQ.
H.225v3 states in URQ 7.10.1: "callSignalAddress - This is one or more of the transport call signalling addresses for this endpoint which are to be unregistered."
So, unlike I have understood, this sentence would seem to say that I can not just unregister a single alias, but I must have "a spare" callSignalAddress to unregister as well... Does anybody else think this is not the way it should be?
/Henri Mäenpää
-----Original Message----- From: EXT Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] Sent: 11. February 2000 19:33 To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Description of EndpointAlias in URQ??
Frank,
Frank> The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the Frank> URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164 Frank> address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence
would seem
Frank> to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to Frank> unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that Frank> follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are Frank> unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be Frank> unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
Frank> What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply Frank> ignore it?
IMO, the sentence means "The E.164 address, if assigned [dynamically by the GK during registration procedure], is required".
I wonder what this is doing here at all...
Action that I consider sensible at a gatekeeper: If any aliases are mentioned in URQ, just unregister those aliases; if no aliases are mentioned, unregister the user altogether (ie all aliases).
Action I consider sensible at an endpoint: Mention all aliases that are currently registered!
This may or may not tally with the way people read the spec!!!
Regards Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
Henri,
I don't believe this means you need a "spare" callSignallingAddress. Excuse me if I betray my mathematical heritage here, but... Registration may be considered as providing a one-way mapping from alias to callSignalling Address. A URQ which gives a callSignallingAddress and one or more aliases breaks the mapping from those aliases to that callSignallingAddress. It does NOT stop that callSignalling Address from being registered, and does NOT stop any other aliases registered to a given callSignallingAddress from being so registered.
I hope this is clear!
Regards, Chris
"Henri Mäenpää" wrote:
Hello, I asked this a while ago, but with no success. So, let's try again... This is about callSignalAddress in URQ.
H.225v3 states in URQ 7.10.1: "callSignalAddress - This is one or more of the transport call signalling addresses for this endpoint which are to be unregistered."
So, unlike I have understood, this sentence would seem to say that I can not just unregister a single alias, but I must have "a spare" callSignalAddress to unregister as well... Does anybody else think this is not the way it should be?
/Henri Mäenpää
-----Original Message----- From: EXT Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] Sent: 11. February 2000 19:33 To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Description of EndpointAlias in URQ??
Frank,
Frank> The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the Frank> URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164 Frank> address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence
would seem
Frank> to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to Frank> unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that Frank> follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are Frank> unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be Frank> unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
Frank> What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply Frank> ignore it?
IMO, the sentence means "The E.164 address, if assigned [dynamically by the GK during registration procedure], is required".
I wonder what this is doing here at all...
Action that I consider sensible at a gatekeeper: If any aliases are mentioned in URQ, just unregister those aliases; if no aliases are mentioned, unregister the user altogether (ie all aliases).
Action I consider sensible at an endpoint: Mention all aliases that are currently registered!
This may or may not tally with the way people read the spec!!!
Regards Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
participants (2)
-
Chris Wayman Purvis -
Henri M�enp��