Use of IRR by Gateways

Paul Long plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Mon Apr 3 09:21:16 EDT 2000


Paul,

Oh, maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you were just disagreeing with my proposal
to add a field. You're right, we don't need to add a field to v4 so that an
EP can indicate whether it will encode perCallInfo, thus continuing it being
optional but removing the ambiguity of a missing entries. As of v4, we could
change the text so that an EP shall always encode perCallInfo to accurate
reflect the request, i.e., all calls or a specific call.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paul.jones at TIES.ITU.CH]
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 4:37 PM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Use of IRR by Gateways


Paul,

Supplying this information is far too important to leave as an option
for
the endpoint.  Section 11.2 is meant to convey those semantics, but if
it is
not clear, perhaps it should be clarified-- in any case, it is not
optional.

I mentioned before that this information is vital for alternate GKs and
it
is also important for keeping track of active calls by a GK.  Suppose,
for
example, that an endpoint starts 1000 calls and sends ARQs to the GK.
Now,
support the endpoint crashes and then reregisters with the GK when it
comes
back up.  The GK may just think that it's a full registration for the
purposes of changing aliases or some other data-- no big deal.  However,
the
truth is that those 1000 calls are gone and the GK needs to know that.
The
IRQ/IRR exchange will keep these two synchronized.

Paul



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list