Failed Reply to a command of an H.248 Transaction Request

Hello,

*A. According to H.248.1 V1/2/3, RFC 3525 Chapter 8 “Transactions”:*

“….

Transactions guarantee ordered Command processing.
That is, Commands within a Transaction are executed sequentially

.…

At the first failing Command in a Transaction,
processing of the remaining Commands in that Transaction stops.

…

A TransactionReply includes the results for all of the Commands in
the corresponding TransactionRequest.  The TransactionReply includes

the return values for the Commands that were executed successfully,
and the Command and error descriptor for any Command that failed.”

*

**and the Implementors Guide for H.248 V2 Chapter 6.32.1 “8 Transaction*


which is mentioning the use of a wildcarded TerminationID in a TransactionReply.

*

When a problem occurs with the addition of the ephemeral termination,
the reply below is valid for the corresponding Transaction Request:

*

T=564{C=${A=al/1/1/25{M{O{MO=
SR,RV=OFF,RG=OFF}},E=353{al/on{strict=exact},al/of{strict=exact},al/fl},SG{}},
                 A=${M{O{MO=IN,RV=OFF,RG=OFF},L{……..}, R{…….}}}}}

Reply=564{Context=52{Add=al/1/1/25,Add=${Error=500{"Error creating
Stream"}}}}

The reply above means that the addition of the physical termination is
successful resulting that the
created context is included in the reply and the addition of the ephemeral
termination by the Access Gateway
was unsuccessful due to for example lack of resources or to Access Gateway
internal error.

 Is that reply according to the above standards?

*B. I**t is noticed that some MGCs have a different behavior in relation to
accept the above reply*

*as described below:*

*B1. MGC does not support the “ADD=$” in the failed transaction command
reply from AGW to the above request:*

MGC expects that the “ADD=$” must *not* be specified in the failed
transaction command reply, instead it expects:

Reply=564{Context=52{Add=al/1/1/25,*Error=500{"Error creating Stream"}*}}

 Is the above syntax of the reply valid and therefore acceptable?

*B2. MGC expects “Context=*-*“ in the failed transaction reply from AGW to
the above request*
MGC expects “Context=-“ in the failed transaction reply from AGW assuming
also that the physical termination
was not added to a context as a result of the ephemeral termination addition
failure:

Reply=564{*Context=**-*{Add=al/1/1/25,Error=500{"Error creating Stream"}}}

Is the above assumption by MGC and the syntax of the Transaction Reply valid
and therefore acceptable?

Could you please reply to the above three questions as this is important for
our design?

Regards,

Chris

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