Re: Error in H.248.41 IP Realm Availability package
Charlie Ross <[email protected]> Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:33:45 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.megaco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <4C9A0A1285A73648BBB8707F62E26A2F505859CA2A@EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se> |
For what it's worth, I agree that removing the extension relationship is probably the way to go. The IP Realm Availability package definition actually makes references to the "ipdc/realm" property as though the latter was a exclusively part a separate package rather than being inherited through extension. Charlie Ross Media Gateway Design Architect Ericsson BCAM Business Unit email: [email protected] > Hello Charlie, cc: Arturo, > > Yes it appears that you are correct the available realms property in the ipra package does cause a conflict. It > either should be binary ID 0x0002 or the package extension should be removed in order to address the issue. > > > Ericsson was the original editor of this work item. This Recommendation is also used by Tispan/3GPP so we would > need to consider this when deciding on a path to take. > > Removing the extension is probably the safest path to take. Any other opinions? > > Regards, Christian > > On 26/04/2011 6:28 AM, Charlie Ross wrote: > > Hello, > > In H.248.41 Amendment 1, the IP Realm Availability (ipra) package is > > defined as extending the IP Domain Connection (ipdc) package. IP > > Realm Availability has a property, "available realms" (ar), that is > > assigned binary property ID 0x0001. This appears to clash with the > > inherited "realm" property that is assigned property ID 0x0001 in the > > parent IP Domain Connection package. From other examples of package > > extension that I have seen, it seems that the available realms > > property should have been given a binary ID that is unique within the > > IP Realm Availability definition, such as 0x0002. This would allow > > both properties to be referenced through IP Realm Availability > > [package ID: 0x00e0]. > > ipra/realm [0x00e00001] > > ipra/ar [0x00e00001? or 0x00e00002] > > Is this possibly an oversight in the standard or is there some other > > way to distinguish these properties within IP Realm Availability when > > using binary encoding? > > Thanks for your insights, > > /*Charlie Ross*/ > > Media Gateway Design Architect > > Ericsson BCAM Business Unit > > _email_: [email protected]