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.

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")

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.