Paul,
An additional consideration on this subject:
In order to have a working early H.245 tunnel, I would like to make CALL PROCeeding and PROGRESS messages as mandatory understood when received in v4. Otherwise, the user will be forced to use a FACILITY message along with these messages which will increase the used bandwidth.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks 5500 Broken Sound Blvd, Boca Raton, Fl 33487 Tel: +1 561 923-1756 Fax: +1 561 923-1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 9:06 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to andincludingConnect
Bob,
[snip Annex F section ]
OK.. it seemed pretty clear that fastStart could be sent multiple times to reconfigure the streams.
I suppose the rule would be: if you're not a SET, ignore; if you are,
react.
(As you know, I'd like to see every endpoint process the subsequent
messages
- then the SET wouldn't be so special, and the redirection problem would
be
solved.)
This might be ideal, but we can't even seem to come to an agreement on whether a single reply is required or multiple replies are required for fastStart. Worse, I believe people have implemented it differently, which makes the situation even more difficult.
(I assume you have been observing the "debate" on the H.323 Implementers list.)
Now, what was this about Fast Open again? :-)
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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