communication from the ATM

Sakae OKUBO okubo at GITI.WASEDA.AC.JP
Fri Nov 3 01:42:12 EST 2000


Paul-
I see your point - that's why I suggested "may ignore" - but in thinking
more about it, that sort of uncertainty ("will he or won't he react to the
modified fastStart?") is not good at all.  BTW, are SETs an exception to
François' rule?  Maybe we need to require reaction to each fastStart (unless
it's the same as an earlier one).  Now that ought to keep us busy!
-Bob
----------------------------------------------------
Bob Gilman       rrg at avaya.com      +1 303 538 3868


"Paul E. Jones" wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> This opens a whole can of worms.  Essentially, I can't agree that fastStart
> may be modified and re-transmitted.  The calling endpoint may have freed
> resources and certainly may not be prepared to accept the newly modified
> proposals.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Gilman" <rrg at AVAYA.COM>
> To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including
> Connect
>
> > Francois and Paul -
> > I agree with François' change to "shall react to the first
> > fastStart element", but I would suggest that "ignore" be
> > replaced by "may ignore" for any subsequent fastStart elements.
> > (If a called endpoint changes fastStart elements in mid-stream,
> > then it's the caller's choice whether it reacts or not.)
> > BTW, doesn't this overlap with the redirection problem in which
> > we perhaps should say that the called endpoint "shall" react to
> > any subsequent [different] fastStart element?
> > -Bob
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Bob Gilman       rrg at avaya.com      +1 303 538 3868
> >
> >
> >        ----- Original Message -----
> >        From: Francois Audet
> >        To: h323implementors
> >        Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 1:32 PM
> >        Subject: RE: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and
> including
> > C onnect
> >
> >        Change the should to a shall then:
> >
> >             The called endpoint accepts a proposed channel by returning
> the
> > corresponding
> >             OpenLogicalChannel structure in a Q.931 message sent in
> response to
> > Setup, up to and including Connect.
> >             <NEW>A called endpoint may choose to repeat the exact same
> fastStart
> > element in all subsequent message up to
> >             and including Connect. Calling endpoints shall react to the
> first
> > fastStart element received in a response message
> >             to the Setup message and ignore any eventual subsequent
> fastStart
> > elements.
> >
> >        If somebody manages to get it wrong after that, they deserve to be
> taken
> > out of business.
> >
> >        I completely disagree with your assertion that we must choose
> either one
> > or many. Currently some implementations send one,
> >        others send many, and we don't see interoperability problems.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > listserv at mailbag.intel.com
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list