Subject: Re: AuditItem

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:40:30 -0400

The ability to return AuditItem was one of the changes added in
draft-ietf-megaco-errata-0x.txt, to allow the MG to indicate that a
particular descriptor is empty.  See the reference to corrections to section
7.1 of the protocol document.

We can't do anything about the ABNF naming convention at this point -- it's
not a bug.

As a matter of interest, our two protocol documents (-megaco-protocol-08 and
-megaco-errata-03) are fifth and sixth on the RFC Editor's queue.  It will
be nip and tuck whether they get obsoleted by
draft-ietf-megaco-merged-01.txt before they are ever assigned RFC numbers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Naren Tulpule [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:06 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      AuditItem
>
> Hi,
>   In the Megaco ABNF, auditReturnParameter is a choice between descriptors
> (for media, modem etc) and "auditItem". AuditItem is a choice between
> descriptor tokens (MediaToken, ModemToken etc).
>
> 1. When is auditItem needed in auditReturnParameter? (To advertise "yes, I
> have some mux?")
>
> 2. To distinguish auditItem more easily from the descriptors, can we
> change
> the ABNF to prefix it with AuditToken?
> (In fact in ASN.1 it is an (empty) auditDescriptor, can we replace
> auditItem
> with auditDescriptor in auditReturnParameter?)
>
> -- Naren.
> Narendra C. Tulpule
> SMTS, Trillium Digital Systems Inc
> 12100 Wilshire Bl #1800 LA CA 90025
> Ph:  +1-310-442-9222
> Fax: +1-310-442-1162