Hi
Paul
Everything looks OK with me except the very 1st
change.
Specifically the empty h323-message-body
element for non call related Q.931 messages.
The
empty h323-message-body does not allow to add tokens to
the FACILITY message so it cannot be authenticated and its integrity cannot be
checked.
My proposal is to change wording here to allow non
empty h323-message-body in the case security is
required
Sasha
-----Original Message-----
From:
Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Saturday, December
09, 2000 12:06 AM
To:
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Corrections to H.225.0v4 and
H.323v4
Importance: High
H.323 Experts,
I have attached a document that contains the complete
list of corrections for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4, with differences against the
decided text, that we have discussed on the mailing list this past
week.
I would like all interested parties to review these
changes.
I am open to changing the wording, but I would like to
get consensus on making these changes. I have asked the TSB to see if we
can make these corrections prior to the publication of the documents. If
so, I want to have the support of everyone to make these corrections. I
don't believe that any of these issues should be contentious, but without
these corrections, I'm afraid that many more questions and interoperability
problems will arise.
If it turns out that we cannot update the approved text
before publication, I plan to submit this document (or a modified version with
comments I receive from you) to the next meeting in March. Personally,
I'd rather correct the Recommendation before publication, rather than adding
this to the Implementers Guide.
Thanks,
Paul