Re: Megaco Service change reply without version

Hi Tom,
I got it. Actually I have checked in ITU - T H248.1 Draft.
But still am not clear whether for below: {} are required or not.
ABNF says: 

serviceChangeReply = ServiceChangeToken EQUAL termIDList [LBRKT
(errorDescriptor / serviceChangeReplyDescriptor)
RBRKT]
That means, if there is no error descriptor or service change reply descriptor, LBRKT & RBRKT are not required? Is it fine?

Regards,
_Ayush

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:30 AM
To: Ayush Jain
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco Service change reply without version

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