You might be right, but I am confused. The simple case of lockstep works. The EventDescriptor is set up with the event, it happens, you get notified, and you send a modify to rearm it. If the event happens again before the rearm, you ignore it. If it happens after, you get another Notify. The only way I see a problem is when you have time order of a Modify; you have a lockstep event "armed", you send down a Modify with a new EventDescriptor, and the event either happens before or after the Modify command is executed. Perhaps you think it's important to know if the event happened before or after the Modify, but I can't come up with a scenario where it matters. If it does, then I agree, you need a tag that is unique to the setting of the EventDescriptor. I do note that you could (theoretically) report the transactionID of the command that set the event. That would make you sent TerminationID, Event Name and TransactionID on the Notify. It would solve the problem. It might be better to use RequestID rather than that. Brian

-----Original Message----- From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@telcordia.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 10:13 AM To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Cc: brosen@eng.fore.com; Flemming Andreasen Subject: Re: Event reporting (was audio call Thursday: Minutes)

There is actually a good reason for the RequestID. It basically enables you to determine whether a notification was issued before or after the reception of a given request for the notification. As an example where this is important, consider what we refer to as "lockstep mode". It essentially states that a given request can at most generate one Notify, which implies that after receiving a Notify you must send down a new request. Without a RequestID you cannot determine whether that request has already been received or not. This is not only protocol-wise important but semantically as well, as your new request may contain instructions to look for a new set of events that all of a sudden either became important to know about, or you no longer want to hear about. Thus we should keep the RequestID.

Regards

Flemming Andreasen

Brian Rosen <brosen@ENG.FORE.COM> on 04/09/99 08:18:46 AM

Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com>

To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com cc: (bcc: Flemming Andreasen/Bellcore) Subject: Re: Event reporting (was audio call Thursday: Minutes)

As the protocol is currently defined, there is thus thing we called a RequestID. You supply a RequestID with the EventDescriptor, and it is returned by the Notify. A RequestID is a 32 bit integer. The syntax defines the requestID, and uses it in the Notify, but does not show it in the EventDescriptor. That should be fixed, but...

As I noted, TerminationID + EventName is logically equivalent to an MGC assigned RequestID if you can only have one instance of an event on a termination. Implementation seems to be simple in either case at both ends. At the MG, storing the requestID is easy, but not storing is easier. At the MGC, the RequestID would be a separate table, but it would have to have TerminationID and EventName at least implicitly, and probably explicitly in it. Searching a structure by TerminationID and then EventName (or the other way around) is also easy.Thinking about it overnight, if it really is the same, then it would be best to eliminate the RequestID artifice and use Termination ID + EventName.

At the time, I believed we thought that there were circumstances where there was not uniqueness. Right now, I can't see how that can occur.

Brian

...

-----Original Message----- From: Chip Sharp [mailto:chsharp@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 5:46 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Event reporting (was audio call Thursday: Minutes)

Yes that was my understanding as well. The TerminationID would be used to associate the event to the termination. Thus the event report would contain the Termination ID and the event ID.

Chip

At 02:21 PM 4/8/99 -0700, Rex Coldren wrote:

...

Actually I believe this item was not correctly written. I believe the discussion was about how you associate a reported event to a given Termination. There was talk that notifications come back with a RequestID, which must be somehow associated to a Termination. Paul suggested using TerminationID directly.

Christian Huitema wrote:

...

...

5) event handling - currently an event is identified to the MGC with an eventId - Paul Sijben suggested that it would be better to use a terminationId

Sorry for missing the call, but let's comment on that specific point. We discussed the event reporting model at length during the IETF meetings and in the following week, and I don't beleive that there is any advantage in opening the debate again.

Termination Id and event names just do not belong to the same space. Terminations are defined on a per MG basis; events are defined independently of the MG, and in many cases independently of the termination class.

The current notifications identify both the termination on which the event was observed and the name of the event. There is a lot of experience to show that this is a very efficient decomposition, and I don't see any reason whatsoever for ditching the experience in favor of an unproven theoretical design.

-- Christian Huitema ------------------------------ Please note my new address: huitema@research.telcordia.com http://www.telcordia.com/

-------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp voice: +1 (919) 851-2085 Cisco Systems Consulting Eng. - Telco Reality - Love it or Leave it. --------------------------------------------------