TP-DCS octet | Search |
NowSMS Support Forums ⬆ MMS & SMS Technical Discussions (unsupported) ⬆ |
◄ ► |
Author | Message | |||
Paul Brun New member Username: Brunp Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2013 |
I am looking through the specification and see the following: Bits 7..4 can be 1100, or 1101 (which can discard or store the message), but I am more concerned with the rest of the information for bits 3..0: Bit 3 Description 0 Set Indication Inactive 1 Set Indication Active Bit 2 is reserved, and set to 0 Bit 1 Bit 0 Indication Type 0 0 Voicemail Message Waiting 0 1 Fax Message Waiting 1 0 Electronic Mail Message Waiting 1 1 Other Message Waiting* I saw one of the admins on the board specify the following: C0 - Voicemail On C8 - Voicemail Off C1 - Fax On C9 - Fax Off C2 - Email On C2 - Email Off What is confusing is Bit 3?? If 0 means: Set Indication Inactive and 1 means Set Indication Active, then should we then have the opposite meaning where C0 is Voicemail Off, C8 is voicemail On, etc??? when looking at my test data, my results seem to agree with the admin, but why does it specific the opposite in the ETSI specification? Paul | |||
Des - NowSMS Support Board Administrator Username: Desosms Post Number: 4530 Registered: 08-2008 |
Hi Paul, I'm not sure where your reference is coming from that disagrees with the spec, but in NowSMS, we set bit 3 to turn on an indication, and clear it to turn off. In other words, consistent with the spec: C8 = Voicemail On C0 = Voicemail Off -- Des NowSMS Support | |||
Paul Brun New member Username: Brunp Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2013 |
saw it in this discussion: http://support.nowsms.com/discus/messages/1/3360.html | |||
Des - NowSMS Support Board Administrator Username: Desosms Post Number: 4531 Registered: 08-2008 |
Hmm... That is odd. I have to believe that Bryce was typing too quickly and typed the reverse of what he meant. I see other posts that clearly state C8 would be to turn the voicemail indicator on, such as: http://support.nowsms.com/discus/messages/1/24076.html I've also checked our change logs and see no indication that we ever sent MWI messages out the reverse of what the specification indicates. Hopefully someone didn't use that other post as authoritative on the subject and implement phone software incorrectly. I'm tempted to try and figure out how to edit that page to fix it. -- Des NowSMS Support | |||
Paul Brun New member Username: Brunp Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2013 |
That post was dated back to 2004, but if I could have found it via a Google search, then anyone can find it. That is why I want to the ETSI document to confirm my findings. Paul | |||
Des - NowSMS Support Board Administrator Username: Desosms Post Number: 4533 Registered: 08-2008 |
FWIW, I agree with ETSI. I am going to ask Bryce about it and see if he wants to edit the message to fix it. -- Des NowSMS Support |