I kind of vaguely remember that being a bug in an early version of Q.931.
Pretty fuzzy however.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Freundlich [mailto:ggf@AVAYA.COM]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 7:06 AM
To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message
I don't recall intentionally leaving the Progress Indicator IE optional - this
looks like a mistake to me.
Glen
Rich Bowen wrote:
> This may have been an oversight -- I'm not sure a Progress message
> without a Progress Indicator makes any sense. Having only been
> involved in this area for the last couple of years, I'll have to rely
> on someone else to provide the original reason why this was made
> optional.
>
> This IE was also optional in H.225.0 v2. However, section 7.2.2.23 of
> the v4 draft indicates that it is mandatory for a gateway to forward
> this IE from ISDN to H.323.
>
> Rich Bowen
>
> "Wuerfel, Randy P" wrote:
> >
> > In reading through APC-1939 (draft H.225.0 V4) for the Portland meeting, I
> > noticed that the Progress Indicator IE is shown as "O", optional, in the
> > PROGRESS message. It is also shown this way in my copy of H.225.0 V3.
> > However, in Q.931 the Progress Indicator IE is mandatory in the PROGRESS
> > message.
> >
> > Is there some reason why, for H.225.0 usage, the Progress Indicator IE in
> > the PROGRESS message is optional rather than mandatory, or was this an
> > oversight?
> >
> > Randy Wuerfel
> > Siemens Enterprise Networks
> > 4900 Old Ironsides Drive Fax: (408) 492-4666
> > M/S 200 Tel: (408) 492-4375
> > P.O. Box 58075 E-mail:
> > Randy.P.Wuerfel@icn.siemens.com
> > Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > listserv@mailbag.intel.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv@mailbag.intel.com