Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Predon, Frederic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2031 bytes --]

Hi,

As per the 3GPP 22.030 Annex C:
- the MMI Service Code "22" refers to "All sync services" telecommunication service.
- the MMI Service Code "24" refers to "All data circuit sync" telecommunication service.
They are both linked to the same Basic Group Service 8.
So as per our understanding, this means the "All sync services" is equal to "All data circuit sync". Is that everyone's comprehension as well?

When we try to run Call Barring certification tests (particularly 31.8.3.1 from 3GPP 51.010), the spec requires us to activate the call barring with the MMI code "22".
We do it using org.ofono.SupplementaryServices.Initiate with the following string "*33*1234*22#" (This is the activation of BAOC with password "1234" on All Sync Services), Ofono then sends to the modem the following AT command: AT+CLCK="AO",1,"1234",16
According to the 3GPP 27.007 §7.4 (CLCK), 16 is "data circuit sync".
So modem will translate that into "all data circuit sync" in the REGISTER message sent to the network simulator.
However according to 3GPP 51.010 31.8.3.1, only a REGISTER message containing "All synchronous services" is awaited. So conformance  scripts will consider the test as FAILED.
We noticed the test would be PASS only if CLCK classx parameter was 80 (instead of 16). 80 = 16 (data circuit sync) + 64 (dedicated packet access).

Shouldn't we translate the "*33*1234*22#" MMI SS String into AT+CLCK="AO",1,"1234",80 ?

Regards

Fred
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company)
Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris, 
92196 Meudon Cedex, France
Registration Number:  302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE
Capital: 4,572,000 Euros

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 7545 bytes --]

RE: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Rajesh.Nagaiah]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2530 bytes --]

 
Hi Fred,

>As per the 3GPP 22.030 Annex C:
>- the MMI Service Code "22" refers to "All sync services" telecommunication service.
>- the MMI Service Code "24" refers to "All data circuit sync" telecommunication service.
>
>They are both linked to the same Basic Group Service 8.
>So as per our understanding, this means the "All sync services" is equal to "All data circuit sync". Is that everyone's
>comprehension as well?

Yes & No. Previously (Before Rel99, Refer GSM 02.02 and GSM 02.30) we had the the bearer services "All dedicated PAD access" (BSG Number 9, MMI 27) and "All dedicated packet access" (BSG Number 10, MMI 26). In this "All dedicated PAD access" is an asynchronous connection and "All dedicated packet access" is a synchronous connection.

So "All Sync Services" used to be => "All data circuit sync" + "All dedicated packet access"
Now that bearer service "All dedicated packet access" is not supported, "All Sync Services" => only "All data circuit sync" 

>When we try to run Call Barring certification tests (particularly 31.8.3.1 from 3GPP 51.010), the spec requires us to 
>activate the call barring with the MMI code "22".
>We do it using org.ofono.SupplementaryServices.Initiate with the following string "*33*1234*22#" (This is the activation 
>of BAOC with password "1234" on All Sync Services), Ofono then sends to the modem the following AT command: AT+CLCK="
>AO",1,"1234",16
>
>According to the 3GPP 27.007 §7.4 (CLCK), 16 is "data circuit sync".
>So modem will translate that into "all data circuit sync" in the REGISTER message sent to the network simulator.
>However according to 3GPP 51.010 31.8.3.1, only a REGISTER message containing "All synchronous services" is awaited. So 
>conformance  scripts will consider the test as FAILED.
>We noticed the test would be PASS only if CLCK classx parameter was 80 (instead of 16). 80 = 16 (data circuit sync) + 64 
>(dedicated packet access).

As the AT command specification 27.007 still has values for dedicated packet access (64) and dedicated PAD access (128),
in the AT modem case for "All Sync Services" we have to translate to "All data circuit sync" (16) + "All dedicated packet access" (64) not only to "All data circuit sync" (16), otherwise as you pointed out the corresponding conformance test case will fail. Thats the reason the test case passes when you pass 80.

>Shouldn't we translate the "*33*1234*22#" MMI SS String into AT+CLCK="AO",1,"1234",80 ?

From my understanding YES.

BR,
Rajesh

Re: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3323 bytes --]

Hi Rajesh,

On 10/15/2010 04:03 PM, Rajesh.Nagaiah(a)elektrobit.com wrote:
>  
> Hi Fred,
> 
>> As per the 3GPP 22.030 Annex C:
>> - the MMI Service Code "22" refers to "All sync services" telecommunication service.
>> - the MMI Service Code "24" refers to "All data circuit sync" telecommunication service.
>>
>> They are both linked to the same Basic Group Service 8.
>> So as per our understanding, this means the "All sync services" is equal to "All data circuit sync". Is that everyone's
>> comprehension as well?
> 
> Yes & No. Previously (Before Rel99, Refer GSM 02.02 and GSM 02.30) we had the the bearer services "All dedicated PAD access" (BSG Number 9, MMI 27) and "All dedicated packet access" (BSG Number 10, MMI 26). In this "All dedicated PAD access" is an asynchronous connection and "All dedicated packet access" is a synchronous connection.
> 
> So "All Sync Services" used to be => "All data circuit sync" + "All dedicated packet access"
> Now that bearer service "All dedicated packet access" is not supported, "All Sync Services" => only "All data circuit sync" 
> 
>> When we try to run Call Barring certification tests (particularly 31.8.3.1 from 3GPP 51.010), the spec requires us to 
>> activate the call barring with the MMI code "22".
>> We do it using org.ofono.SupplementaryServices.Initiate with the following string "*33*1234*22#" (This is the activation 
>> of BAOC with password "1234" on All Sync Services), Ofono then sends to the modem the following AT command: AT+CLCK="
>> AO",1,"1234",16
>>
>> According to the 3GPP 27.007 §7.4 (CLCK), 16 is "data circuit sync".
>> So modem will translate that into "all data circuit sync" in the REGISTER message sent to the network simulator.
>> However according to 3GPP 51.010 31.8.3.1, only a REGISTER message containing "All synchronous services" is awaited. So 
>> conformance  scripts will consider the test as FAILED.
>> We noticed the test would be PASS only if CLCK classx parameter was 80 (instead of 16). 80 = 16 (data circuit sync) + 64 
>> (dedicated packet access).
> 
> As the AT command specification 27.007 still has values for dedicated packet access (64) and dedicated PAD access (128),
> in the AT modem case for "All Sync Services" we have to translate to "All data circuit sync" (16) + "All dedicated packet access" (64) not only to "All data circuit sync" (16), otherwise as you pointed out the corresponding conformance test case will fail. Thats the reason the test case passes when you pass 80.
> 

My interpretation of 22.004 and 22.030 was that dedicated packet access
and dedicated PAD access were deprecated and no longer being used.  The
fact that they're still listed in 27.007 seems to be irrelevant.

One possibility is that the bearer services covered by dedicated packet
& dedicated pad access were lumped together with bearer services 20 and
30 from 3GPP 22.002.

>> Shouldn't we translate the "*33*1234*22#" MMI SS String into AT+CLCK="AO",1,"1234",80 ?
> 
> From my understanding YES.

I actually am fine making this change, and it is quite trivial to boot.
 But before we do that, can we confirm that this is indeed mandated by
the specs, and not an error in the test cases.

What values are expected from MMI services 25, 24 and 26?

Regards,
-Denis

RE: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Rajesh.Nagaiah]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2249 bytes --]

Hi Denis, 
 
> My interpretation of 22.004 and 22.030 was that dedicated 
> packet access and dedicated PAD access were deprecated and no 
> longer being used.  The fact that they're still listed in 
> 27.007 seems to be irrelevant.

As dedicated packet access and dedicated PAD access is mentioned in
27.007, the AT modems still consider these values while translating the
corresponding Basic Service group. Thats the reason when sending 16 the
AT modem translates it to "All data circuit sync" and  80  to "All Sync
services" in REGISTER message(Fred can you confirm this ?). 
In case of message based modems, we have seperate MMI for All Sync
services and All data circuit sync services and as MMI's for dedicated
packet access and dedicated PAD access are deprecated the translation
happens without conflict.

> One possibility is that the bearer services covered by 
> dedicated packet & dedicated pad access were lumped together 
> with bearer services 20 and 30 from 3GPP 22.002.

I think the dedicated packet access and dedicated PAD access bearers are
deprecated, not grouped with BS 20 and 30.

> >> Shouldn't we translate the "*33*1234*22#" MMI SS String 
> into AT+CLCK="AO",1,"1234",80 ?
> > 
> > From my understanding YES.
> 
> I actually am fine making this change, and it is quite 
> trivial to boot.
>  But before we do that, can we confirm that this is indeed 
> mandated by the specs, and not an error in the test cases.

There is no error in the corresponding test cases.

> What values are expected from MMI services 25, 24 and 26?

For MMI 22 (All Sync Services)=> 80 ("All data circuit sync" (16) + "All
dedicated packet access" (64))

For MMI 21 (All Async Services)=> 160 ("All data circuit async" (32) +
"All dedicated PAD access" (128)).

For MMI 26 (Telephony and All sync services)=> 81 (Telephony (1) + "All
data circuit sync" (16) + "All dedicated packet access" (64))

For MMI 24 (All data circuit sync)=> 16 ("All data circuit sync")

For MMI 25 (All data circuit async)=> 32 ("All data circuit async")

Fred, can you modify the values for MMI 22, 21 and 26 as above and
confirm from the test result whether our understanding is correct or not
? 

BR,
Rajesh

RE: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Pargada, Carlos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2478 bytes --]

Hi Rajesh,

> What values are expected from MMI services 25, 24 and 26?

> For MMI 22 (All Sync Services)=> 80 ("All data circuit sync" (16) + "All
> dedicated packet access" (64))

> For MMI 21 (All Async Services)=> 160 ("All data circuit async" (32) +
> "All dedicated PAD access" (128)).

> For MMI 26 (Telephony and All sync services)=> 81 (Telephony (1) + "All
> data circuit sync" (16) + "All dedicated packet access" (64))

> For MMI 24 (All data circuit sync)=> 16 ("All data circuit sync")

> For MMI 25 (All data circuit async)=> 32 ("All data circuit async")

I confirm your analyze for translation between MMI code services and classx parameters for CLCK AT command. 
Assuming that dedicated packet access is an synchronous services and dedicated PAD access is an asynchronous services (2204-491, replaced by 2204)


MMI     group           oFono current translate table
10	[1 to 6,12]		BEARER_CLASS_VOICE | BEARER_CLASS_FAX | BEARER_CLASS_SMS	1 + 4 + 8	OK
11	[1        ]		BEARER_CLASS_VOICE							1		OK
12	[2 to 6   ]		BEARER_CLASS_SMS | BEARER_CLASS_FAX					4 + 8		OK
13	[6        ]		BEARER_CLASS_FAX								4		OK
16	[2        ]		BEARER_CLASS_SMS								8		OK
	
	
19	[1, 3 to 6, 12]	BEARER_CLASS_VOICE | BEARER_CLASS_FAX				1 + 4		OK
20	[7 to 11      ]	BEARER_CLASS_DATA_ASYNC | BEARER_CLASS_DATA_SYNC		16 + 32	to be replace by  16 + 32 + 64 + 128
21	[7            ]	BEARER_CLASS_DATA_ASYNC							32		to be replace by	32 + 128			
22	[8            ]	BEARER_CLASS_DATA_SYNC							16		to be replace by	16 + 64		
24	[8            ]	BEARER_CLASS_DATA_SYNC							16		OK			
25	[7            ]	BEARER_CLASS_DATA_ASYNC							32		OK				
26	[1,8          ]	BEARER_CLASS_VOICE | BEARER_CLASS_DATA_SYNC			1 + 16	to be replace by	 1 + 16+ 64             

I suggest to introduce you proposal on MMI 21, 22, 26 and also add changes on MMI 20 


Regards

Carlos


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company)
Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris, 
92196 Meudon Cedex, France
Registration Number:  302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE
Capital: 4,572,000 Euros

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Re: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]

Hi Rajesh,

On 10/19/2010 12:27 AM, Rajesh.Nagaiah(a)elektrobit.com wrote:
> Hi Denis, 
>  
>> My interpretation of 22.004 and 22.030 was that dedicated 
>> packet access and dedicated PAD access were deprecated and no 
>> longer being used.  The fact that they're still listed in 
>> 27.007 seems to be irrelevant.
> 
> As dedicated packet access and dedicated PAD access is mentioned in
> 27.007, the AT modems still consider these values while translating the
> corresponding Basic Service group. Thats the reason when sending 16 the
> AT modem translates it to "All data circuit sync" and  80  to "All Sync
> services" in REGISTER message(Fred can you confirm this ?). 
> In case of message based modems, we have seperate MMI for All Sync
> services and All data circuit sync services and as MMI's for dedicated
> packet access and dedicated PAD access are deprecated the translation
> happens without conflict.

So let me repeat what you said in my own words.  The lowlevel register
message has these variations:

- All data circuit sync
- All sync services

- All data circuit async
- All async services

In both cases they actually refer to the same set of bearer services.
So sending one vs the other makes no difference.  So instead of
deprecating the 'all sync' and 'all async' versions of the low level
register messages the spec still expects us to send them for whatever
reason.  And the compliance tests are trying to ensure the modem sends
the 'right' one.  This is why we have to use values 64 and 128.

Am I right so far?

If so, on what planet is this not a bug in the test case? Oh right, this
is GSM...

Anyhow, this finally makes sense at least, in a twisted sort of way.

Regards,
-Denis

Re: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Pekka Pessi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 871 bytes --]

Hi Denis,

2010/10/19 Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>:
> So let me repeat what you said in my own words.  The lowlevel register
> message has these variations:
>
> - All data circuit sync
> - All sync services
>
> - All data circuit async
> - All async services
>
> In both cases they actually refer to the same set of bearer services.

> So sending one vs the other makes no difference.  So instead of
> deprecating the 'all sync' and 'all async' versions of the low level
> register messages the spec still expects us to send them for whatever
> reason.

There is also a set of PLMN-specific services. I suppose it is up to
network to decide which are sync or async and which involve data
circuits... There are some traces in Nokia modems indicating even that
they have been actually used at some point.

-- 
Pekka.Pessi mail at nokia.com

Re: Call Barring and MMI Supplementary Service codes

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

Hi Pekka,

On 10/19/2010 10:30 AM, Pekka Pessi wrote:
> Hi Denis,
> 
> 2010/10/19 Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>:
>> So let me repeat what you said in my own words.  The lowlevel register
>> message has these variations:
>>
>> - All data circuit sync
>> - All sync services
>>
>> - All data circuit async
>> - All async services
>>
>> In both cases they actually refer to the same set of bearer services.
> 
>> So sending one vs the other makes no difference.  So instead of
>> deprecating the 'all sync' and 'all async' versions of the low level
>> register messages the spec still expects us to send them for whatever
>> reason.
> 
> There is also a set of PLMN-specific services. I suppose it is up to
> network to decide which are sync or async and which involve data
> circuits... There are some traces in Nokia modems indicating even that
> they have been actually used at some point.
> 

Yep I've always wondered how anyone could implement these with an AT
based modem.

Anyway, this has been fixed by commit
b75a5574f5a5652880ab2fe4760c2f3272815496

Please test and report back if the conformance cases pass now.

Regards,
-Denis