bjhargrave
commented
13 years ago Comment author: Evgeni Grigorov <e.grigorov@prosyst.com>
- The requirements numbering needs update current: REQUIREMENT[8] should be: REQUIREMENT[1]
- Fig. 1 title is out of date current: Basic Architecture of TR-069 Protocol Implementation . should be: Basic architecture of TR-069 Enabled OSGi implementation
- Actually the figure 3 is 2 current: Fig.3 Sequence Examples of RPCs including Response and atomic session management should be: Fig.2 Sequence Examples of RPCs including Response and atomic session management
- The table 4 caption is wrong current: Table 4:Mapping from the TR-069 data type to DmtData Format for GetParameterValues RPC for “boolean”, “int”, “unsignedInt”, “long”, “unsignedLong”, and “dateTime”. shold be: Table 4:Mapping from the TR-069 data type to DmtData Format for SetParameterValues RPC for “boolean”, “int”, “unsignedInt”, “long”, “unsignedLong”, and “dateTime”.
- the PAsends -> 9. the PA sends
- "Mapping of SetParameterValues RPC to Dmt Admin interfaces", the potential verification in 4.f. is duplicated to 4.a. The suggestion is that we can remove the second one.
- "Mapping of SetParameterValues RPC to DMT Admin Interfaces" current: if the usedsession is atomic, go to Step 5. should be: if the used session is atomic, go to Step 6.
-
current: III. If the Acl of all leaf nodes allows it, the parameter is assumed as writable. go to Step 2.e.IV. should be: III. If the Acl of all leaf nodes allows it, the parameter is assumed as writable. Go to Step 2.e.IV..
- Mapping of AddObject RPC to Dmt Admin interfaces, step 3 Step 3. If not, it is an error condition. - it's not clear how to handle that error condition
- Table 2 title is wrong current: Mapping of TR-069 ACS RPCs to DMT Admin interfaces shoudl be: Mapping of DMT Admin interfaces to TR-069 ACS RPCs
- Section 6.3.1, Opening Session current: Note that if the SetParameterValues contains only one ParameterValueStruct with the type of “string” and the type of the node in DMT corresponding to the parameter name is DmtConstant.DDF_SUBTREE_URI, the PA may need to write multiple node values. should be: Note that if the SetParameterValues contains only one ParameterValueStruct with the type of “string” and the type of the node in DMT corresponding to the parameter name is DmtConstant.DDF_LIST_SUBTREE, the PA may need to write multiple node values.
- ParameterValueStrusts -> ParameterValueStruscts
-
current: session as described in Section 6.4.1. In that case, the session should be opened at the start of processing the request that needs to write node values, should be: session as described in Section 6.2. In that case, the session should be opened at the start of processing the request that needs to write node values,
- ParematerValue -> ParameterValue
- "Case1: TR-069 data type is “base64”." current: b. Otherwise, then it constructs DmtData(int, byte[]) with the first elements in the array of raw format names as the first argument. should be: b. Otherwise, then it constructs DmtData(String formatName, byte[] data) with the first elements in the array of raw format names as the first argument.
- setting ParematerValue for the node is failed. -> Setting ParameterValue for the node is failed.
- , Otherwise go to Step 4 -> , otherwise go to Step 4
- , The CWMP Fault code specified -> , the CWMP Fault code specified
- IIf the PA encounters -> If the PA encounters
-
" If the SOAP fault does not contain SetParameterValuesFault, the protocol adapter must set a code and a message contained in a DmtException instance to a FaultCode element and a FaultString element in the SOAP Fault response, respectively. The code in the DmtException must change the Fault code according to Table 5. Other information such as a path and causes included in the DmtException instance may be added to the FaultString element. " The paragraph looks duplicated with the next one.
- MetaData -> MetaNode
-
current: FORMAT_STRING because FORMAT_XML will never be selected for SetParameterValues RPC (see 6.2.1.2) should be: FORMAT_STRING because FORMAT_XML will never be selected for SetParameterValues RPC (see 6.4.2, Case 3)
Original bug ID: BZ#1884 From: Evgeni Grigorov <e.grigorov@prosyst.com> Reported version: R4 V4.3