Description of URQ??

[Chris Wayman Purvis]

Henri,

I don't believe this means you need a "spare" callSignallingAddress.
Excuse me if I betray my mathematical heritage here, but...
Registration may be considered as providing a one-way mapping from alias to
callSignalling Address.  A URQ which gives a callSignallingAddress and one or
more aliases breaks the mapping from those aliases to that
callSignallingAddress.  It does NOT stop that callSignalling Address from being
registered, and does NOT stop any other aliases registered to a given
callSignallingAddress from being so registered.

I hope this is clear!

Regards,
Chris

"Henri Mäenpää" wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I asked this a while ago, but with no success. So, let's try again...
> This is about callSignalAddress in URQ.
>
> H.225v3 states in URQ 7.10.1:
> "callSignalAddress -
> This is one or more of the transport call signalling addresses
> for this endpoint which are to be unregistered."
>
> So, unlike I have understood, this sentence would seem to say that I can
> not just unregister a single alias, but I must have "a spare"
> callSignalAddress
> to unregister as well...
> Does anybody else think this is not the way it should be?
>
> /Henri Mäenpää
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EXT Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK]
> > Sent: 11. February 2000 19:33
> > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: Re: Description of EndpointAlias in URQ??
> >
> >
> > Frank,
> >
> > >   Frank> The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the
> > >   Frank> URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164
> > >   Frank> address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence
> > would seem
> > >   Frank> to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to
> > >   Frank> unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that
> > >   Frank> follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are
> > >   Frank> unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be
> > >   Frank> unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
> > >
> > >   Frank> What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply
> > >   Frank> ignore it?
> > >
> > > IMO, the sentence means "The E.164 address, if assigned [dynamically
> > > by the GK during registration procedure], is required".
> >
> > I wonder what this is doing here at all...
> >
> > Action that I consider sensible at a gatekeeper:
> > If any aliases are mentioned in URQ, just unregister those
> > aliases; if no
> > aliases are mentioned, unregister the user altogether (ie all
> > aliases).
> >
> > Action I consider sensible at an endpoint:
> > Mention all aliases that are currently registered!
> >
> > This may or may not tally with the way people read the spec!!!
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> > --
> > Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
> > ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
> > Winkfield Row, Berkshire.  RG42 6LY  ENGLAND
> > Phone: +44 1344 899 007
> > Fax:   +44 1344 899 001
> >

--
Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
Winkfield Row, Berkshire.  RG42 6LY  ENGLAND
Phone: +44 1344 899 007
Fax:   +44 1344 899 001