Subject: Re: [Megaco] Profile negotiation and Control association

From: Bill Xiaoshaoping <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:01:37 +0800

Hello Albrecht,
Thanks for your comments. 
I'm happy to propose this one to be clarified in the Implementers' Guide. So far I think the following text may be acceptable:
7.2.8.1.11         ServiceChange Command and Response
"If the MGC returned a profile in the reply other than the one that was provided in the request the MG shall:
a.           issue a new ServiceChange Command with an agreed profile to confirm to the MGC that the MG has agreed with the profile, or
b.           complete the profile negotiation, so that the MGC will use the profile that it sent in the ServiceChange Reply, or
c.           ......"

On second thoughts, I have one more question on the two actions above, that is,  how long the MGC will wait to confirm the profile negotiation procedure is completed? The spec provide  two different methods to make an agreement between MG and MGC, this would make the MGC confused when it should consider the profile negotiation is completed.

If feasible, I would suggest the MG will issue a new ServiceChange Command  in the only case that it could not support the profile in the previous ServiceChange Reply, not to confirm to the MGC that the MG has agreed with the profile. This way is alike to version negotiation, it is unnecessary to add this flexibility to MG , which only make the implementation more complex (both the MG and MGC) and no any profit.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "xiaoshaoping 38157" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Profile negotiation and Control association

I think, there are some valid points indicated which should be
clarified/fixed in the Implementers' Guide.
Could you provide a correspondent contribution to next Q3/16 meeting?
Thanks,
Albrecht

                      xiaoshaoping                                                                                                    
                      38157                    To:      [email-masked]                                                               
                      <xiaoshaoping@hu         cc:                                                                                    
                      awei.com>                Subject: [Megaco] Profile negotiation and Control association                          
                                                                                                                                      
                      15.06.2006 07:01                                                                                                

Hello,
    I've some problem when understanding the profile negotiation procedure
in H248v3:

7.2.8.1.11         ServiceChange Command and Response
"If the MGC returned a profile in the reply other than the one that was
provided in the request the MG shall:
a.           continue the control association by issuing a new
ServiceChange Command with an agreed profile to confirm to the MGC that the
MG has agreed with the profile, or
b.           keep the control association active, so that the MGC will use
the profile that it sent in the ServiceChange Reply, or
??"

If the MG choose action "a", I think the control association is not
established yet, because ServiceChangeProfile is not agreed between the MGC
and MG, so the Registration is not completed, based on following words
excerpted from $F.3.1/H248.1 V3:
"Registration starts when the initial ServiceChange Command is sent from
the MG to the MGC and completes when the command is replied by the MGC
without an alternate address or an error and the ServiceChangeProfile is
agreed between the MGC and MG. The control association is established upon
completion of registration"
So, how to understand the words of "continue the control association"?

If the MG choose action "b", does it implies that the MG will accept the
profile in the ServiceChange Reply silently, and not issused any new
ServiceChange Command to claim which profile it chosed actually?
If so, I think the words of "keep the control association active" is
inaccurate because the new control association is established just now, how
to "keep"?
and what is the definition of "active" state of control association, is the
initiation or success of the registration? As I know, the spec just defined
initiation, establishment and termination point for the control association
as:
F.2          Control Association Definition
"A control association is a communication relationship whereby an MGC is
controlling an MG. A control association is instantiated via registration.
The control association is terminated by the MG going OutOfService, being
successfully handed off to an alternate MGC, or successfully failing over
to an alternate MGC. "

Can somebody give me a light on these problem?

thanks,
Bill Xiaoshaoping

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

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

---

From: "B Venkat S.R Swamy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:38:13 +0530

Hi

I do agree with Bill and would also suggest changing the behaviour at MG end to send the new service change command to secondary MGC and disconnect the association with

old one if MG does not support the profile returned in reply. If the MG supports the profile in reply there is no need to explicitly tell using another servicechange command.

regards

B Venkat S.R Swamy

Senior Technical Leader

Flextronics Software Systems

Phone: +91-124- 4176213

Fax: +91-124-4300247

web: www.flextronicssoftware.com

Bill Xiaoshaoping <[email-masked]>

Bill Xiaoshaoping <[email-masked]>

07/04/2006 08:31 AM

To

[email-masked]

cc

[email-masked]

Subject

Re: [Megaco] Profile negotiation and Control association

Hello Albrecht,

c.           ......"

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

----- Original Message -----

Cc: <[email-masked]>

Thanks,

Albrecht

xiaoshaoping

<xiaoshaoping@hu         cc:

15.06.2006 07:01

Hello,

in H248v3:

??"

to "keep"?

as:

to an alternate MGC. "

thanks,

Bill Xiaoshaoping

Megaco mailing list

[email-masked]

Megaco mailing list

[email-masked]

*********************** FSS-Restricted ***********************

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software

Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the

individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or

confidential information and should not be circulated or used for

any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received

this message in error, please notify the originator immediately.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are

strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing

the contents of this message. FSS accepts no responsibility for

loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted

by this email including damage from virus."