Re: Megaco Service change reply without version

  Hello Ayush,

The ABNF is:

serviceChangeReply = ServiceChangeToken EQUAL termIDList [LBRKT

(errorDescriptor / serviceChangeReplyDescriptor)

RBRKT]

The { } are within square brackets so if there's no descriptor 
information then they are not included.


Regards, Christian

On 14/10/2010 12:59 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
> You shouldn't be working from any RFC. The official reference for the 
> protocol is H.248.1 as published by the ITU-T. You can find it at
>
> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H/en
>
> On 13/10/2010 8:46 AM, Ayush Jain wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> If MGW sends a service change request to MGC&  MGC has to reply 
>> without any descriptors(without version etc), then opening&  closing 
>> bracket should be there on root or not. Currently for me, opening&  
>> closing brackets are coming from MGC, so MGW is returning Unsupported 
>> Descriptor&  so Disconnect.
>>
>>
>> ###########################Service Change coming from MGW
>>
>> TRANSACTION = 17008 {
>>
>>
>>
>>    CONTEXT = - {
>>
>>
>>
>>      SERVICECHANGE = ROOT {
>>
>>
>>
>>        SERVICES { METHOD = RESTART,
>>
>>
>>
>>                   REASON = 901,
>>
>>
>>
>>                   VERSION = 2 }
>>
>>      }
>>
>>
>>
>>    }
>>
>>
>>
>> } msgLen = 206
>>
>>
>>
>> MEGACO/2 [10.128.254.81]
>>
>>
>>
>> REPLY = 17008 {
>>
>>
>>
>>    CONTEXT = - {
>>
>>
>>
>>      SERVICECHANGE = ROOT {
>>
>>      }
>>
>>
>>
>>    }
>>
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>   msgLen = 103
>>
>> So now, whether  {} is required after ROOT or not ? I could not get 
>> it clearly as per RFC.
>>
>> Regards,
>> _Ayush
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Megaco mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>