Subject: Washington Issue 17 - Use of Choose in Property Values

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:10:45 -0500

A number of issues were raised in the Washington meeting that
were "send to the list".  This is one of these issues, with the
problem and my suggested fix.

problem:

It has been suggested that property values be allowed to be specified as
"CHOOSE", with the MG choosing a value.
It is presently possible to specify alternatives, ranges,
and inequalities, but not an arbitrary CHOOSE.

Proposed Solution
Allow CHOOSE (in text encoding, "$") as a value for a property

Brian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:27:44 +0100

G'Day all,

I think we definately need this capability. It is currently in the ASN1
representation and I thought this was a base capability that we've had
all along in the protocol.

An example where it is needed is something like the a binding reference.
The MGC could do something like:

ADD(CxtID(TermID=$),Transport=AAL2,BIR=?)

The TerminationID and Binding Reference would then be returned.

Cheers, Christian

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:11:26 -0500

Where did Binding Reference and Transport come from?  Has the protocol
changed since IETF?

I don't have a problem with a choose in the LocalControl descriptor.  It
makes some sense there.  However, I think that if the
LocalControldescriptor doesn't include a parameter then it is an implied
Choose.

Chip

> > Allow CHOOSE (in text encoding, "$") as a value for a property

Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:16:59 +0100

G'Day Chip,

The Transport and Binding Reference are example properties. I should
have including the LocalDescriptor before them in my example. I don't
have the flu so I don't have any excuse, sorry.

I agree with you if you mean that if you don't include a 'property
value' then this is an implied. This is an underspecified property that
we've always had. ie. properties can be overspecified, fully specified
and underspecified.

This was the point I was trying to get across in my previous email. I
don't really care how this is specified in SDP,  I just need the
function.

Cheers, Christian