Re: Megaco Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5

 Hi,

For interpretation of "0ef", "1ef", "2ef" etc.
[0-9]ef may be used . 
Rest 
following
"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9","e" , "f" will be
interpreted with your digit map "([0-9ef])".

Regards,
Prabuddha C

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 12:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Megaco Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5

Send Megaco mailing list submissions to
	[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Megaco digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1.  Digit map syntax question (Maxim Treskin)
   2. Re: Digit map syntax question (Sudhanshu Garg)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:44:22 +0400
From: "Maxim Treskin" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Megaco]  Digit map syntax question
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
	<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello

I have question about megaco digit map syntax.
Is digitmap, like "([0-9ef])" valid?
I use erlang OTP megaco stack, and it interpretes this digit map that
following numbers is valid:
"0ef", "1ef", "2ef" etc.
Is it right or there is error in megaco stack? I think that valid number
values must be:
"0", "1", "2", ..., "9", "e", "f"

Say me please, which method is right?

--
Maxim Treskin


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:35:25 +0530
From: Sudhanshu Garg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Digit map syntax question
To: Maxim Treskin <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
	<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
	
<5503041852BDE44CB8B85BFDA141E0FDC0EFFFA3@GUREXMB01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM
>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi,

Range (two digits separated by hyphen can be expanded into all the
digits from first to last (inclusive both ends).
The digits inside square brackets represent the dialled digitmap symbol
that can be given at corresponding place.

So [0-9ef] means [0123456789ef].
Therefore it represents one of the following:
"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9","*","#"

Regards,
Sudhanshu.
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Maxim Treskin [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Megaco]  Digit map syntax question

Hello

I have question about megaco digit map syntax.
Is digitmap, like "([0-9ef])" valid?
I use erlang OTP megaco stack, and it interpretes this digit map that
following numbers is valid:
"0ef", "1ef", "2ef" etc.
Is it right or there is error in megaco stack? I think that valid
number values must be:
"0", "1", "2", ..., "9", "e", "f"

Say me please, which method is right?

--
Maxim Treskin
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

"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 forloss or damage arising from the use of the information
transmitted by this email including damage from virus."


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco


End of Megaco Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5
*************************************