Event reporting (was audio call Thursday: Minutes)

Chip Sharp chsharp at CISCO.COM
Thu Apr 8 17:46:01 EDT 1999

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.


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 at 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.

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list