**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Wed Jul 06 02:59:57 2011
Jul 06 17:44:01 <Jeevaka> denkenz: ping
Jul 06 17:44:30 <denkenz> Jeevaka: pong
Jul 06 17:45:50 <Jeevaka> Regarding the number being dialed as part of the Set UP Call request, do we really need it?
Jul 06 17:46:11 <Jeevaka> To user we are anyway going to show the alpha identifier 
Jul 06 17:46:58 <denkenz> we need it for the emergency call case
Jul 06 17:47:02 <denkenz> Also, the alpha id might be empty
Jul 06 17:48:01 <Jeevaka> But how do we know its going to make an emergency call?
Jul 06 17:48:31 <denkenz> I think the spec mandates 112 as emergency number identifier
Jul 06 17:48:47 <Jeevaka> we can match with the numbers we have but I dont know how we can be really sure of the call being establised is  an emergency call
Jul 06 17:49:26 <Jeevaka> only for mandatory numbers
Jul 06 17:51:03 <denkenz> If the UICC supplies a number stored in EFECC, this shall not result in an emergency call.
Jul 06 17:51:53 <Jeevaka> what if mandatory emergency numbers are also stored in EFecc?
Jul 06 17:52:18 <denkenz> "It is possible for the UICC to request the terminal to set up an emergency call by supplying the number "112" as called
Jul 06 17:52:18 <denkenz> party number. The terminal may translate this number in the appropriate technology specific number or procedure.
Jul 06 17:52:18 <denkenz> "
Jul 06 17:52:42 <denkenz> Basically the only way for an emergency number to be called via STK seems to be 112
Jul 06 17:53:12 <Jeevaka> contradicting spec statements
Jul 06 17:53:15 <denkenz> 31.111 section 6.4.13: "If the UICC supplies a number stored in EFECC, this shall not result in an emergency call."
Jul 06 17:53:35 <denkenz> Sort of, but not really
Jul 06 17:53:55 <Jeevaka> so the exception is 112
Jul 06 17:54:17 <denkenz> That's the way I read it
Jul 06 17:56:43 <Jeevaka> incase of infineon modem, we receive +SATF(from which we trigger proactive_session_end function )
Jul 06 17:57:29 <Jeevaka> SATF is received for both call success and failure case which is as expected
Jul 06 17:58:26 <denkenz> aren't we supposed to get ofono_stk_proactive_command_handled_notify for terminal responses as well?
Jul 06 17:59:32 <Jeevaka> nope
Jul 06 18:01:21 <denkenz> That seems to be the comment in stk.c
Jul 06 18:01:36 <denkenz> Is it just the Set Up Call that is special on IFX?
Jul 06 18:10:26 <Jeevaka> you mean in stk.c under ifxmodem
Jul 06 18:10:49 <denkenz> ofono_stk_proactive_command_handled_notify
Jul 06 18:10:59 <denkenz>         /*
Jul 06 18:10:59 <denkenz>          * Modems send us the proactive command details and terminal responses
Jul 06 18:10:59 <denkenz>          * sent by the modem as a response to the command.  Terminal responses
Jul 06 18:11:00 <denkenz>          * start with the Command Details CTLV tag (0x81).  We filter terminal
Jul 06 18:11:00 <denkenz>          * responses here
Jul 06 18:11:00 <denkenz>          */
Jul 06 18:11:09 <denkenz> in src/stk.c
Jul 06 18:11:34 <Jeevaka> thats the comment by balrog-k2n
Jul 06 18:11:53 <Jeevaka> i think thats from freerunner
Jul 06 18:13:04 <denkenz> The problem is, half the commands handled in that function depend on the terminal response being known
Jul 06 18:13:09 <denkenz> Otherwise we never unset the alpha_id
Jul 06 18:18:01 <Jeevaka> may be instead of unsetting the alpha id from there, we can provide a function which does that
Jul 06 18:18:45 <Jeevaka> but that will result in modem specific things spilled in the core
Jul 06 18:19:27 <denkenz> I was under the impression that IFX did that
Jul 06 18:19:34 <Jeevaka> nope
Jul 06 18:19:37 <denkenz> If not, then this needs to be fixed in their firmware
Jul 06 18:19:45 <denkenz> Otherwise we don't know when to unset the alpha id
Jul 06 18:20:31 <Jeevaka> so assumption is that relying on SATF is not a good idea
Jul 06 18:20:51 <denkenz> SATF tells us of session end right?
Jul 06 18:21:39 <Jeevaka> SATF is an unsolicited response for terminal response sent by AP using +SATR Command. Also SATF is used
Jul 06 18:21:40 <Jeevaka> for keeping track of a proactive session
Jul 06 18:22:54 <denkenz> Ah ok I see now
Jul 06 18:23:32 <denkenz> Is SATF emitted for SATN commands?
Jul 06 18:25:22 <denkenz> What I'm trying to get at is that session end != command end
Jul 06 18:25:37 <denkenz> There are major differences and for these cases we actually want command end
Jul 06 18:25:50 <Jeevaka> agree
Jul 06 18:26:18 <Jeevaka> SATF is emitted for SATN commands as well but I need to confirm whether it means session end or command end
Jul 06 18:26:48 <denkenz> It can mean both
Jul 06 18:28:26 <denkenz> You might really need balrog-k2n here, since some of his assumptions might not be working out
Jul 06 18:29:20 <Jeevaka> seems to be away, will contact him offline
Jul 06 18:29:23 <denkenz> We might need an explicit ofono_stk_terminal_response_sent or something
Jul 06 18:30:55 <Jeevaka> ok
Jul 06 20:17:39 <Jeevaka> balrog-k2n: ping
Jul 06 20:18:03 <balrog-k2n> Jeevaka: so the problem is that +SATF doesn't contain the full terminal response, only a boolean success/failure?
Jul 06 20:19:04 <Jeevaka> currently, my understanding is that it is just to inform the end of a proactive session
Jul 06 20:19:15 <Jeevaka> Need to get it confirmed from Infineon
Jul 06 20:19:57 <Jeevaka> it gives sw1 and sw2
Jul 06 20:20:01 <balrog-k2n> is there some other way to know if a proactive command handled by +SATN succeeded?
Jul 06 20:20:48 <Jeevaka> +SATF: <sw1>, <sw2>
Jul 06 20:21:41 <balrog-k2n> that's not much information because it will report success even for a negative terminal response (terminal busy, etc.)
Jul 06 20:24:03 <Jeevaka> understanding is that it is only used to inform end of a session
Jul 06 20:24:33 <Jeevaka> or even command but i'll let you know as soon as I get it confirmed
Jul 06 20:25:56 <balrog-k2n> i'm thinking that if it's emitted for command end, then it could be used to emulate the terminal response in ifxmodem/stk.c
Jul 06 20:27:06 <balrog-k2n> it would just call ofono_stk_proactive_command_handled_notify() with some fake TERMINAL RESPONSE pdu
Jul 06 20:27:26 <balrog-k2n> provided that +SATN was received last
Jul 06 20:28:04 <Jeevaka> thats not the case
Jul 06 20:28:20 <Jeevaka> SATN is only received 1time
Jul 06 20:28:54 <balrog-k2n> Jeevaka: what i mean is that when ifxmodem/stk.c receives +SATN, it sets a flag
Jul 06 20:29:12 <balrog-k2n> then if the next thing received is +SATF, it calls ofono_stk_proactive_command_handled_notify()
Jul 06 20:30:23 <Jeevaka> seems an option
Jul 06 20:34:40 <Jeevaka> will get back once i get confirmation of when the SATF is trigger
Jul 06 20:36:16 <balrog-k2n> ok
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Jul 07 02:59:56 2011