Paul,
I can see that from the words you can deduce that fastConnect and H.245 can be present in the same reply, but are we sure that that is the intent of the authors, and also how implementors will read it?
Also, it would be interesting to know whether the restrictions were in the original text or placed in later. If they were put in later, the text may well be fudged somewhat in its accuracy, as quite often such fixes are put in in panic and not so well thought through.
Pete.
============================================= Pete Cordell Tech-Know-Ware pete@tech-know-ware.com +44 1473 635863 =============================================
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Long Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: 07 June 2000 07:36 Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Bob (Jane?),
H.323 allows the message that carries the accepted FC channels, e.g., Alerting, to also carry tunneled H.245 messages. What you may be thinking
of
is that 8.2.1/H.323v3 (see below) says that an EP cannot tunnel H.245 _prior_ to the call-signaling message that carries the accepted FC
channels.
It's okay to do it in the same message, though.
"The sending of encapsulated H.245 messages or the initiation of the separate H.245 connection by either endpoint prior to the sending of a
Q.931
message containing fastStart by the called endpoint terminates the Fast Connect procedures."
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. "Primum non nocere"
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Hua [mailto:huajane@YAHOO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:51 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul- The problem is that inclusion of an H.245 message in the tunnel terminates FastStart according to section 8.2.1 of H.323. This could be "satisfied" by using the early H.245 element for the replys so that FastStart could proceed. At least this mechanism would make it easy to know that the responder (the called endpoint) was able to overlap FastStart and H.245.
-Bob
Bob Gilman rrg@lucent.com +1 303 538 3868
Paul Long wrote:
Bob,
H.323 only says that fastStart and h245Control cannot both be included
in
_Setup_, so it could indeed be included in the Setup-UUIE type.
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:27 AM
Hi All,
As far as my understanding goes, the purpose of prohibiting both fastStart and H.245 tunnel in SETUP was to avoid race conditions in two tunnels (fastStart can also be considered as a H.245 tunnel with different procedures). Here we are adding a new tunnel which will lead to more such race scenarios until proper care is taken in defining the procedures.
The decision on this should not be like a voice vote in Congress. The procedures should be clearly documented and circulated over the reflector and let people argue on those concrete documented steps.
Let us see, can we fix the problem introduced by introduction of fastStart?
Regards, Jane Hua
To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
It would be required in the SETUP, CALL PROCeeding, ALERT, FACILITY,
and
CONNECT message in that all of these messages can be sent before Fast Start is completed or may not be present with Fast Start elements based on
v2.
Bob
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