LogicalChannelRate Messages

Aseem Agarwal aseem at TRILLIUM.COM
Wed Nov 10 21:02:14 EST 1999


Hi Paul

  IMO, SequenceNumber and LogicalChannelNumber, both the elements
  are required in LogicalChannelRateRelease message to take care of
  cases when multiple LogicalChannelRateRequest messages are pending
  on a single logical channel.

  Both these elements should be mandatory like in other LogicalChannelRate
  message.

thanks,
aseem

>
> Hani,
>
> I forgot to note that the new component should be OPTIONAL:
>
> LogicalChannelRateRelease       ::=SEQUENCE
> {
>         ...,
>         logicalChannelNumber    LogicalChannelNumber OPTIONAL
> }
>
> We should also add wording to the effect that if logicalChannelNumber is not
> present, this message applies to _all_ LogicalChannelRateRequests for which
> replies have not yet been sent. This would remove the current ambiguity from
> H.245v5 and v6.
>
> Paul Long
> Smith Micro Software, Inc.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: El-Gebaly, Hani [mailto:hani.el-gebaly at INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 1:13 PM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages
>
>
> Aseem, Paul and all,
>
> LogicalChanelRate SDL should be very similar to any request/response
> pair like Paul mentioned. This was an Intel contribution for controlling
> video/data channel bitrate. I will consider bringing a clarification
> contribution to version 6 maybe and the implementers guide in an
> upcoming Rapporteur meeting. Yes releaseComplete should have a cookie to
> address the active SDL. I didn't want to deviate from the legacy :). I
> will address this issue as well.
> Thanks for the reminder.
> regards,
>
> Hani
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Long [mailto:plong at SMITHMICRO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:57 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages
>
>
> Aseem,
>
> Good point. Looks like an oversight. Using the other signaling entities,
> or
> SEs, as a guide, it appears that when there is a single SE per call, as
> is
> the case with CESE, no other information is required; however, when
> there
> can be multiple SEs per call, as is the case with CLCSE, RMSE, _and our
> "LCRSE"_, one must identify which instance of the incoming SE in the
> remote
> EP is being released.
>
> As a practical matter, I would say that upon receipt of
> LogicalChannelRateRelease as it is currently defined in H.245v5, an EP
> should release _all_ incoming SEs. At the earliest opportunity, we
> should
> add a logical-channel-number extension addition to this message, i.e.,
>
> LogicalChannelRateRelease       ::=SEQUENCE
> {
>         ...,
>         logicalChannelNumber    LogicalChannelNumber
> }
>
> BTW, If we had gone to the trouble of defining an SE for these messages,
> I
> bet this oversight would have been caught in time.
>
> Paul Long
> Smith Micro Software, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aseem Agarwal [mailto:aseem at trillium.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:40 PM
> To: plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
> Cc: h323implementors at imtc.org
> Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages
>
>
> hi Paul
>
> A related question. There are no "sequence number and logical channel
> number" information elements in LogicalChannelRateRelease message. How
> will a receiving entity correctly associate this message to the request
> message received earlier in case multiple such requests are pending ?
>
> regards,
> aseem
>



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list