The structure you described for bearers, terminations, multiplexors,
contexts etc. described seems reasonable.
For a PSTN termination in text telephone mode of the highest level, where
the PSTN way of alternating between voice and text is supported, I see it
best described as a kind of user-driven multiplexor.
When there is a carrier from the text phone, the multiplexor conveys the
text stream.
When the carrier ceases, the multiplexor conveys the audio stream.
Text arriving from an IP termination may cause the state of the PSTN
multiplexor to change from audio to text and then transmit the text in the
prevailing text telephone mode.
Audio coming from an IP termination while the multiplexor is in the text
mode can not go through. The multiplexor stays in the text mode until the
user makes the alteration. ( usually by lifting the handset and "stealing"
the line from the textphone.)
On the IP side, H.323 Annex G is supposed to support simultaneous audio and
text. There is no need for this kind of user driven multiplexor there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the requirements behind this description should go into
section 11.2.4 of megaco requirements (D-286 of Santiago). But where in
H.gcp do you want the description of parameters and functions needed in the
gateway components for this functionality?
Gunnar Hellström
At 10:09 AM 1999-06-10 +0200, John Segers wrote:
Hao,
In the current MEGACO model as described in draft-01, a Termination
describes the media and in-band signaling for one user, and how they are
transported etc. A Context associates all Terminations in a session and
implies audio mixing if there are more than two.
This idea is retained in the Santiago work. Going to multiple media, a
Termination still describes the media and in-band signaling for one
user. A Context still associates all Terminations in a session. For
multimedia sessions, the mixing/switching can no longer be implied, but
will be described by means of Context properties. If there is only
audio, nothing changes in the Context.
In order to allow H.320 and H.324 where multiple media are multiplexed
on one or more bearers, there needs to be a distinction between
TerminationID and BearerID in order to retain the concept that a
Termination describes the media, in-band signaling and transport.
You see, the goal was to stay close to the basic monomedia connection
model for multimedia, always keeping in mind that there should be as
little overhead as possible for controlling voice calls (setup,
teardown, ...). The places where you see overhead occurring in the
Santiago proposal are indeed when dealing with multiple bearers for
multimedia, and, as Brian Rosen pointed out, in Audits. It seems to me
that this is acceptable because these operations will occur much less
frequently than the voice/fax/NAS setups.
Regards,
John Segers
HaoHou wrote:
Jonh,
Thanks for your reply,
Please see comments below.
Second, the use of Add/Subtract/Modify commands. You are proposing to
use Add/Subtract to add media streams to a session or delete them from
it. This changes the semantics of the commands drastically. They are
intended to perform operations on Contexts (add or remove
Terminations). In the Santiago proposal this semantics is maintained.
Operations to change Termination parameters are performed using the
Modify command.
Regards,
John Segers
Thats why the Santiago proposal makes the Modify command awkward. ?
Suppose we have 3 bearer channels already in a Termination.
In order to release one bearer channel, we have to list both the other two
bearer channels in the MODIFY command.
In order to add one more bearer channel, we have to list the new
bearer channel and all the existed bearer channels in the MODIFY
command.
I dont think the change of semantics will affect the protocol and the
implementation too much. Instead, it will make the protocol easier to
be understood:
As long as you want to add some entities into the context or
termination, you
use ADD. As long as you want to sbustract some entities from the context
or termination, you use Subtract. It is a more natural way to express the
intention
of the commands.
Could you tell me why Santiago proposal wants to keep the old semantics
unchanged,
after the big change of the Context and Termination concept? What does
it gain?
Id rather change the semantics to meet the change of the concept.
Best Regards,
Hao
--
John Segers email: jsegers@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies Room HE 306
Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724
P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954
-------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Ericsson Home Systems
Tel +46 751 100 501
Fax +46 8 556 002 06
e-mail gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Video +46 8 556 002 05
-------------------------------------