Subject: [Megaco] profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that was provided in service change request

From: "Pankaj Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:16:25 +0530

Hi All

I have query about profile (name and version) returned in the reply of
service change message from the MGC.  The Section 7.2.8.1.11 of H.248
version 3 says that "The profile (name and version) is only returned in
the reply in the case that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles
in the ServiceChangeRequest", whereas in the same place it says "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 c) initiate a control association with a
different MGC using its original profile.". 

It is not calrified from the spec that what will be the MG behavior on
receiving same profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that was
provided in service change request. Whether in this case as per
condition "The profile (name and version) is only returned in the reply
in the case that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles in the
ServiceChangeRequest" the MG will send another service change with same
profile or mark control association as active. 

Thanks & Regards

Pankaj Kumar

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

---

From: "Schwarz Albrecht" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:04:11 +0200

Hi Pankaj,
 
§ 7.2.8.1.11 was updated, see IG or new H.248.1 Amendment 1:
ITU-T Rec. H.248.1 Amendment 1 "Gateway Control Protocol: Version 3" (New)
http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG16-070626-TD-PLEN-0394/en

We got at least one discussion on this clause due to
AVD-2919 <http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0608_Ott/AVD-2919.zip>  Implementers' Guides for H.248.1 - Profile Negotiation Procedures

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0608_Ott/AVD-2919.zip

Do you see still items for clarification?
-Albrecht

________________________________

	From: Pankaj Kumar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Montag, 23. Juli 2007 12:46
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Megaco] profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that wasprovided in service change request

	Hi All

	I have query about profile (name and version) returned in the reply of service change message from the MGC.  The Section 7.2.8.1.11 of H.248 version 3 says that "The profile (name and version) is only returned in the reply in the case that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles in the ServiceChangeRequest", whereas in the same place it says "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 c) initiate a control association with a different MGC using its original profile.". 

	It is not calrified from the spec that what will be the MG behavior on receiving same profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that was provided in service change request. Whether in this case as per condition "The profile (name and version) is only returned in the reply in the case that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles in the ServiceChangeRequest" the MG will send another service change with same profile or mark control association as active. 

	Thanks & Regards

	Pankaj Kumar

---

From: Deepak Bissa PNGN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:04:36 +0530

Hi Pankaj,
Firstly, MGC should not send the profile name and version in reply if it 
supports profile sent in service change request by MG.
But, in case it does so, then MG should take care of such situation.
It should consider profile negotiation to be successful in this situation 
and mark the association as active.

With Regards,
Deepak Bissa

"Pankaj Kumar" <[email-masked]> 
07/23/2007 04:16 PM

To
<[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Megaco] profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that wasprovided 
in service change request

Hi All
I have query about profile (name and version) returned in the reply of 
service change message from the MGC.  The Section 7.2.8.1.11 of H.248 
version 3 says that ?The profile (name and version) is only returned in 
the reply in the case that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles 
in the ServiceChangeRequest?, whereas in the same place it says ?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 c) initiate a control association with a 
different MGC using its original profile.?. 
It is not calrified from the spec that what will be the MG behavior on 
receiving same profile (name and version) in reply from the MGC that was 
provided in service change request. Whether in this case as per condition 
?The profile (name and version) is only returned in the reply in the case 
that the MGC cannot support the specified profiles in the 
ServiceChangeRequest? the MG will send another service change with same 
profile or mark control association as active. 
 
Thanks & Regards
Pankaj Kumar

***********************  Aricent-Restricted   ***********************
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent  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. Aricent accepts no responsibility for 
loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Deepak Bissa PNGN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:45:14 +0530

Hi Pankaj,
Firstly, MGC should not send the profile name and version in service 
change reply if it supports profile sent by service change request by MG.
But in case it does so, then MG should take care of such situation and 
should not send the new service change request and mark the association as 
active.

With Regards,
Deepak Bissa

To
<[email-masked]>
cc

Subject

Hi All
 
Thanks & Regards
Pankaj Kumar