Subject: Use of "strict" parameter

From: Dan Elbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:17:18 -0500

Hi All

1. What is the default behavior of the MG if the "strict" parameter is not
set ( for events onhook, offhook of al package) ?
I'd suggest "state" since this allows to convey the maximal information back
to the MGC.

2. What is the correct use of the "exact" value for the "strict" parameter ?
If the termination is already in the required state, I understand that 
this setting will cause the termination not to send the event but to keep
waiting for it. Is this correct ? Seems like in this case there is
a risk of the MGC getting out of synch with the MG.

3. If the "init" parameter is not set when reporting a hook event, should
this be considered the same as if it was set to "False" ? 
(this is what makes more sense to me). Or is this a required parameter ? (I
don't think that anybody was setting this in the interop...)

Thanks,

Dan Elbert

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:37:22 -0500

Hi.  Answers below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Elbert [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:17 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Use of "strict" parameter
> 
> 
> Hi All
> 

[PTT] We should choose whatever reflects the most frequent usage -- defaults
are there to save effort.  For people who don't want to look it up, "state"
means that if a line is already on/off-hook when told to watch for
on/off-hook, the corresponding state transition event will be reported.
Does this seem like the most likely setting?
> a risk of the MGC getting out of synch with the MG.

[PTT]
Your description of behaviour is correct.  There could be circumstances
where the MGC wants to use this one, for instance, to tell the MG to watch
for off-hook as a final step of call cleardown, where the line may still be
off-hook from the previous call.
> don't think that anybody was setting this in the interop...)

[PTT] 
We need agreement on this, particularly when the "state" setting is used.
Comments, people?

---

From: Nurit Shenhar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:13:05 +0200

Where can I find this error? It wasn't in RFC 3015, nor in Annex L.

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Younts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Nurit Shenhar
Cc: 'Megaco (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Use of "strict" parameter

That error would be 540. 

Nurit Shenhar wrote: 

 Hi Tom, Dan'State' sounds as the logical default for the 'strict'
parameter. The 'Init' parameter should appear only when 'state' was asked -
it has no meaning with 'exact'.So it is not a required parameter, but I
guess that is should be in the reply when 'state' was used in the request.
We didn't use it in the inter-op, because nobody really cared when the
on/off hook occurred, as long as we got it...I have a question about the
'failWrong': What error should be used to indicated the wrong state?Nurit 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Tom-PT Taylor [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:37 PM 
To: 'Dan Elbert'; [email-masked]' 
Subject: RE: Use of "strict" parameter 
 
Hi.  Answers below. 

> From: Dan Elbert [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 

[PTT] 

[PTT] 

-- 
   Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- 
   I took the one less traveled by, 
   And that has made all the difference. 
                         -Robert Frost 
--------------------------------------------- 

W. Randy Younts      GWC Protocols 
NORTEL NETWORKS      Dept. 3Z90 
35 Davis Dr.         Voice: (919) 991-2014 
RTP, NC  27709       ESN: 351-2014