Subject: RE: [Megaco] Auditing the active Contexts

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:44:34 -0400

> We can always agree to disagree. However, I would like to use that as
> a last measure. So I'll take another crack at it.
No prob, I prefer working harder to reach consensus

> First let's remove the idea of a new parameter on root. I 
> agree that it is
> too late for that. That is not the issue at all.
Well, adding a package is not a big deal.  It's deprecating an existing
mechanism that it is too late to do.

> The problem with both my example Number 3 and your proposal is that
> they treat ROOT as a wildcarded TerminationID. Perhaps this is my
> opinion, but ROOT is and should be treated as a fully specified
> TerminationID. Therefore, handling it like a wildcarded TerminationID
> is the wrong approach, and if it is wrong (i.e. a defect) it 
> should be fixed
> via the IG. Luckily, expanding ROOT as a wildcard also happens to be
> unnecessary since ALL/ALL is possible.
ROOT refers to the whole gateway.  There is benefit in having a way to
get a succinct list of valid contextIds.   At one point, I thought about
adding a new descriptor (ContextList) which would just hand you back what
the property you were thinking about would have, but we were trying to
constrain the syntax to not have a zillion descriptors.  For quite a
while, I believed we could get away with your number 1.  It was only
relatively recently that we discovered, as you did, that the syntax
doesn't allow it.  If there was any change, that is the one I would want to
do, allow an empty action reply.

The ALL/ROOT thing is just a way to signal unambiguously what you want.
If we had used ContextList, we would have had a new token to use in audit.
Without it, we needed a way to distinguish between "send me all terminations
in all contexts" from "send me all contexts".  Thus ALL/ROOT.

Brian

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Dan Linton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 13:00:08 -0400

Brian,

Thanks for getting back. If we have to make a change and it can't be to
get rid of ALL/ROOT, I would lean towards the empty action reply
that you have proposed. It's a bit strange in that the original action request
contained a command request but the action reply does not contain a
command reply. But, I can get over that if everybody else can.

Thanks,
Dan