H.248.PIPA Package Identifier Publishing and Application; RE: H248 Question

Wayne,
this is indeed a question for clarification (in my understanding).
Q.3/16 got a work item H.248.PIPA on that subject, attached some old
contributions.
I've Cc'd MEGACO because there are different opinions on that topic,
which prevented progress in 2009.
 
Regards,
Albrecht



________________________________

	From: Wayne Cutler [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Dienstag, 2. Februar 2010 09:18
	To: Schwarz Albrecht
	Subject: H248 Question 
	
	
	
	 
	Hi Albrecht,
	 
	Do you have a view on the following issue raised by our
developers. 
	 
	As we know, H248 permits packages to extend others. So, let's
say that packasge A has events e1 & e2 and package B extends A and adds
an event e3. 
	 
	So, the MGC may arm for A/e1, A/e2, B/e1, B/e2, Be3 (and A/e1 is
equivalent to B/e1 as is A/e2 to B/e2).
	 
	The issue is with regard to the behaviour of the GW in the event
of being armed to look for B/e1. In the event of event e1 being detected
on the GW, is it permissable 
	for the GW to report  :- 1) only B/e1 or 2) either A/e1 or B/e1
(i.e. since A/e1 is equivalent to B/e1). 
	 
	I've looked thru' the IG and the base protocol text and it is
not explicit. What do you think ?
	 
	Thanks,
	Wayne

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