Inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in version3

In response to point one, I believe you mean the ASN.1
grammar and not
the "RFC grammar".  I don't even know what an RFC
grammar is...
 
Further, it does not ensure that only one of the two can be
present.  In
fact, the topologyDirection is required. It merely ensures
that if both
are present, that the extension takes precedence.  It was
done this way
due to the way the ASN.1 was originally written (without the
ellipsis).
 
Kevin

________________________________

From: Divij Agarwal [mailtoivij.Aga
rwalaricent.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:07 AM
To: ganesh.krishnaccpu.com
Cc: Divij Agarwal; megacoietf.org
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in
version3



Hi, 
Please find the responses below: 

Query 1: Inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in case of
topologyDirection


TopologyRequest ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
        terminationFrom TerminationID, 
        terminationTo TerminationID, 
        topologyDirection ENUMERATED 
        { 
                bothway(0), 
                isolate(1), 
                oneway(2) 
        }, 
        ..., 
        streamID StreamID OPTIONAL, 
        topologyDirectionExtension ENUMERATED OPTIONAL 
        { 
                onewayexternal(0), 
                onewayboth(1), 
        ...         
        } 
        -- if present, topologyDirectionExtension takes
precedence over 
        -- topologyDirection 
} 

The RFC grammar explicitly mentions that if
topologyDirectionExtension
is present than it should take precedence over
topologyDirection. 
This ensures that at any given time only one of the two,
topologyDirection or topologyDirectionExtension, can be
present. 


Query 2: Inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in case of
Auditreply 
  
AuditReply ::= CHOICE 
{ 
        contextAuditResult TerminationIDList, 
        error ErrorDescriptor, 
        auditResult AuditResult, 
        ..., 
        auditResultTermList TermListAuditResult 
} 

AuditResult ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
        terminationID TerminationID, 
        terminationAuditResult TerminationAudit 
} 

TermListAuditResult ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
        terminationIDList TerminationIDList, 
        terminationAuditResult TerminationAudit, 
... 
} 
  
In case of ASN, the Audit Reply is a CHOICE. Hence at any
given instance
either AuditResult  or TermListAuditResult  would be
present. 
In case of AuditResult a single term ID can be specifed
while in case of
TermListAuditResult a term id list can be specified. 
In both the cases TerminationAudit would be present. 

Earlier in the mailing list the document containing the
differences
between ASN and ABNF found in H.248.1 V3 (Sept 2005) was
published dated
10th July 2006 "ASN-ABNF differences H.248.1 V3".

Please find attached the same for reference. 



With Regards,
Divij Agarwal
Software Engineer
Aricent, Inc 



"Ganesh krishna" <ganesh.krishnaccpu.com> 

03/22/2007 02:24 PM 


To
<megacoietf.org> 
cc
Subject
[Megaco] Inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in version3

	




Hi, 
  
            I observed inconsistency between ABNF and ASN in
case of
topologyDirection and auditReply. 
  
TopologyDirection: 
  
            In case of ABNF, it is choice of 5 possible
directions, so
only one value is possible at one time. 
            In case of ASN, it is two separate fields. Here
two values
are allowed at one time. 
  
  
ABNF: 
  
topologyDirection = BothwayToken / IsolateToken /
OnewayToken / 
OnewayExternalToken / OnewayBothToken 
  
  
ASN: 
  
TopologyRequest ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
terminationFrom TerminationID, 
terminationTo TerminationID, 
topologyDirection ENUMERATED 
{ 
bothway(0), 
isolate(1), 
oneway(2) 
}, 
..., 
streamID StreamID OPTIONAL, 
topologyDirectionExtension ENUMERATED OPTIONAL 
{ 
onewayexternal(0), 
onewayboth(1), 
... 
} 
-- if present, topologyDirectionExtension takes precedence
over 
-- topologyDirection 
} 
  
AuditReply: 
  
            In case of ABNF, auditOther is termIDList. Here
one or more
than one termination id is allowed. 
            In case of ASN, auditResult (terminationID) and
auditResultTermList (terminationIDList) are separated, but
second field
terminationAuditResult in both are same. 
  
ABNF: 
auditReply = (AuditValueToken / AuditCapToken) 
(contextTerminationAudit / auditOther) 
auditOther = EQUAL termIDList [LBRKT terminationAudit RBRKT]

  
ASN: 
  
AuditReply ::= CHOICE 
{ 
contextAuditResult TerminationIDList, 
error ErrorDescriptor, 
auditResult AuditResult, 
..., 
auditResultTermList TermListAuditResult 
} 
AuditResult ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
terminationID TerminationID, 
terminationAuditResult TerminationAudit 
} 
TermListAuditResult ::= SEQUENCE 
{ 
terminationIDList TerminationIDList, 
terminationAuditResult TerminationAudit, 
... 
} 
TerminationAudit ::= SEQUENCE OF AuditReturnParameter 
  
  
Please clarify my queries about this inconsistency. 
  
  
Thanks and Regards, 
Ganesh_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megacoietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco



***********************  Aricent-Restricted  
***********************

***********************  Aricent-Unclassified  
*********************** 
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent 
and is intended
solely for the use of 
the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged or
confidential information and should not be 
circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is
intended.
If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the
intended
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the
contents of
this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for 
loss or damage arising from the use of the information
transmitted by
this email including damage from virus."



_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megacoietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco