Subject: Responses to Commands

From: Bharat Kaul <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:48:13 -0700

Hi Folks,

  There seems to be some conflicticting statements in the document.

 In section 9.0, last line of the section says that the "responses to the
command should be sent to the source address". Similar statement occurs in
section D.1.5 , paragraph 4.

However in section 11.5 of the document, following statement appears
The MGC and MG may take the following steps when Handoff occurs. When the
MGC initiates a HandOff, the handover should be tran- sparent to Operations
on the Media Gateway. Transactions can be exe- cuted in any order, and could
be in progress when the ServiceChange is executed. Accordingly, commands in
progress continue, transaction replies are sent to the new MGC (after a new
control association is established), and the MG should expect outstanding
transaction replies from the new MGC.

So, is there a conflict or is it me ? Clarification is appreciated.

Thanks
Bharat

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Bharat Kaul;                                      Trillium Digital Systems
Inc.
mailto:[email-masked]          12100 Wilshire Blvd,
Phone: +1-310-442-9222                Los Angeles, CA - 90025.
Fax:     +1-310-442-1162                  http://www.trillium.com

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:54:37 -0400

Section 9 is talking specifically about response to the ServiceChange
command.  The problematic case is D.1.5.

The problem is to ensure that a transaction response gets to wherever it is
needed to close things off, during and after handoff or failover.  Perhaps
we could try these principles:

(1) Clearly, until registration is completed with the new MGC, transaction
responses can only go back to the initiator of the transaction.

(2) For some intermediate period, responses should go both to the old MGC
and to the new one.

(3) At the end of that period responses go to the new MGC only.

If this sounds like a possibility, the next step is to determine what
event(s) mark the end of the intermediate period.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bharat Kaul [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:48 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Responses to Commands
>
> Hi Folks,
>