H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions V5 Update

Paul Rheaume paul.rheaume at ALCATEL.COM
Mon May 7 12:32:47 EDT 2001


Hi Christian,

Looks good to me. Thanks.

Paul

Christian Groves wrote:
>
> G'Day Paul,
>
> The text I currently have in the implementors' guide is:
> 2) Forced - indicates that the specified Terminations were taken
> abruptly out of service and any established connections associated with
> them may be lost. For non-Root terminations the MGC is responsible for
> cleaning up the context (if any) with which the failed termination is
> associated.  At a minimum the termination shall be subtracted from the
> context.  The termination serviceState should be "out of service". For
> the root termination the MGC can assume that all connections are lost on
> the MG and thus can consider that all the terminations have been
> subtracted.
>
> Is this OK? I believe the text "may be lost" is a fact because you are
> ensure of the state of the connection. I also believe the distinction
> between the root and other terminations is important.
>
> Cheers, Christian
>
> Paul Rheaume wrote:
> >
> > Christian,
> >
> > Proposed change to section 7.2.8 ServiceChange, 2) Forced: delete the
> > text "and any established connections associated with them were lost" so
> > that the paragraph now reads:
> >
> > 2) Forced - indicates that the specified Terminations were taken out of
> > service. The MGC is responsible for cleaning up the context (if any)
> > with which the failed termination is associated. At a minimum the
> > termination shall be subtracted from the context. The termination
> > serviceState should be "out of service".
> >
> > Explanation: it is possible for the connection to still exist even if a
> > termination is out of service. It does not matter if the connection
> > associated with the termination is lost or not it only matters whether
> > the termination is in service or out of service. From section 7.1.5
> > Termination State Descriptor: "The state "out of service" indiates that
> > the termination cannot be used for traffic."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > Christian Groves wrote:
> > >
> > > G'Day all,
> > >
> > > I have come up with an interim version of the H.248 Implementors' Guide
> > > Additions v5. It contains additional correction to ones reviewed at the
> > > SG16 Launceston meeting.
> > >
> > > It can be found at:
> > > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/
> > > filenames:
> > > TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.doc
> > > TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.pdf
> > >
> > > Please check it for correctness and that it contains the points
> > > discussed on the list. There were also some corrections added that were
> > > not discussed on the list. If you have an issue please propose a
> > > solution giving the wording that you would like to see. As mentioned in
> > > the introduction this document is liable to change until final approval.
> > >
> > > v4 was my own edition and was not published to any external network/list
> > > so please don't look for it.
> > >
> > > Let the editor bashing begin.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Christian
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 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