Subject: Piggyback

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:47:31 -0400

In the thread on Transport layer, the issue of piggyback
was raised.

>and the deletion of the Piggybacking section that seemed to be
>MGCP-specific and not applicable to megaco.

Piggybacking simply allows multiple MEGACO messages in one
UDP packet.  This is a desirable feature, and certainly
not MGCP specific.  Why would we not want to allow multiple
transactions in a packet?

Brian

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:55:27 -0400

The reason was that megaco already allows multiple transactions in one
megaco message.  There didn't seem to be any need for another mechanism.

I don't really care one way or another.  The section as it was written
referred explicitly to MGCP (including MGCP examples).  Rather than spend
time re-writing it, we just struck it.

If you think it is needed and  want to write up new wording for megaco,
please do so.

Chip

>transactions in a packet?

--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------