Dear Mr. Li, experts,
of course finding the best technical solutions that works is our joint goal and we completely agree we are working for the ITU for technical not political reasons.
it is quite discouraging that our questions remaining unanswered and the positive signs we were sending are ignored still.
I believe that we are here in ITU to discuss technical issues and to design the best technical solutions that works, not politics.
On the one hand we can read your avowal to a technical discussion on the other hand our technical questions are remaining unanswered still. (first sent on 13.12.2000 and 14.12.2000 and repeated several times since that time).
Here are several of the questions again:
We are supposed to perform the test reproducible for everybody else within the standardization community. Which public available software for H.263 we are going to use ?
concerning your document APC 2018 "Protection Procedure": c) If the protection is actually done with level p-1 why do one has to keep level p somehow ? In opposition to the written text is packet #3 in your figure.
d) Can you please explain the meaning of "packet" in every case it is mentioned within this paragraph ?
The meeting deadline is approaching. Any further delay leads to less meaningful results.
Best Wishes Gero Baese
----------------------------------------------------------- Gero Bäse Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 636 53193 Corporate Technology Fax: +49 89 636 52393 Networks and Multimediacommunication CT IC 2 -----------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com