Re: Error in H.248.41 IP Realm Availability package definition?

Hello Arturo,

People have some time to think about it. As the editor of the H.248.x 
Implementors' Guide i'll submit a contribution to the July Q.3/16 
meeting regarding it.

Regards, Christian

On 29/04/2011 7:45 PM, Arturo Martin De Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Christian, Charlie,
>
> Thanks for the info. Yes, seems this was unfortunately overlooked.
>
> At this stage I tend to agree with you, Christian, that it's probably safer to remove the extension.
>
> I guess this is a good forum for companies to state if they have an opinion. We ourselves may also come back.
>
> Best regards,
> Arturo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 4:08 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Arturo Martin De Nicolas
> Subject: Re: [Megaco] Error in H.248.41 IP Realm Availability package definition?
>
> 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]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Megaco mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco