Mr. Hellström,
My own preference would be that Annex G would make all appropriate references to Annex F and not add additional text in the main body of H.323. I may be mistaken, but I believe that H.323 currently only references Annex A in the main body of the text to point out a mandatory requirement.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: Gunnar Hellstrom gunnar.hellstrom@OMNITOR.SE To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:59 PM Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September - Annex G Text
It might be wise to tie in Annex G Text Conversation and Text SET with a few words into the body of H.323 V3.
Do we have a policy to introduce Annexes with some text in the main body
or
can it hang loose as it does now?
I am not ready with the RTP payload type for text in IETF until later this year, and was aiming at a February decision for H.323 V3 with Annex G.
Regards
Gunnar Hellström
At 20:20 1999-06-28 -0400, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Folks,
We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine version 4 in February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that
people
can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU by
30
June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for
decision
in Septemer.)
This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document that
was
determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the
document
for any errors or omissions.
The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since version
2.
Please direct any comments on the document to me.
The document can be found here:
ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc
Best Regards, Paul E. Jones DataBeam Corporation
Gunnar Hellstrom LM Ericsson
E-mail gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Tel +46 751 100 501 fax +46 8 556 002 06