LogicalChannelRate Messages

Paul Long plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Wed Nov 10 21:59:50 EST 1999


Aseem,

I disagree. None of the other SEs include sequenceNumber in the release
message. This is because sequenceNumber is used solely to uniquely identify
a response as belonging to a request for the benefit of the _initiator_ of
the procedure. The receiver of the request message only needs to return the
sequenceNumber in its replies--it does not need it to identify an incoming
SE. In the case of our "LCRSE," the logicalChannelNumber uniquely identifies
the incoming SE instance.

Just like the LCSE, there is one SE per channel, not one SE per request.
(C.4.1/H.245v5: "At each of the outgoing and incoming sides there is one
instance of the LCSE for each uni-directional logical channel.") One SE per
request, which is essentially what you are proposing, would make our stacks
needlessly complex.

As evidenced by the other SEs which we successful use all the time,
logicalChannelNumber is sufficient to identify which incoming SE to release.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aseem Agarwal [mailto:aseem at TRILLIUM.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 8:02 PM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: LogicalChannelRate Messages


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