Thanks for catching this. I'll make this correction in the next draft of H.225.0.
Rich - Karl.Klaghofer@icn.siemens.de wrote:
I agree with Aseem.
D.392 from Geneva had this new field correctly qualified as OPTIONAL in any message it appears (including IRR).
Besides H.323v3 Impl Guide, this error slipped in during editing phase also to H.225.0v4 and needs to be corrected here as well.
Regards, Karl Klaghofer Siemens
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@ties.itu.int] Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 22. März 2000 03:23 An: Aseem Agarwal Cc: h323implementors@imtc.org; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Klaghofer Karl ICN SIB NL D1 Betreff: Re: Doubt about CallLinkage structure in IRR message
Aseem,
That is definitely a typographical error-- the callLinkage field should definitely contain the OPTIONAL modifier. I will make a correction to this and make mention of it at the next Question 13/16 meeting.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Best Regards, Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aseem Agarwal" aseem@trillium.com To: paul.jones@ties.itu.int Cc: h323implementors@imtc.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Doubt about CallLinkage structure in IRR message
Hi Paul, Implementers' Guide for H.225V3 (H323V3_IG_0002.zip) has added CallLinkage structure to perCallInfo in IRR as a mandatory IE.
Since the Call Linkage is an optional feature, it should be an optional IE. Is this a mistake or there is a reason behind it? Kindly clarify.
thanks, aseem@trillium.com
Please send E-mail to contact@imtc.org mailto:contact@imtc.org to subscribe or unsubscribe from this list
Please send E-mail to contact@imtc.org mailto:contact@imtc.org to subscribe or unsubscribe from this list
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard K. Bowen Cisco Systems, Inc. rkbowen@cisco.com Research Triangle Park, NC --------------------------------------------------------------------