Anatoli,
This is a difficult situation here: and we've been here before. I received e-mail from one company this morning that said they need the H.323v2 field, because they did use the Implementers Guide definitions.
Now, it appears that we have the same problem as we had with the TokenOID problem back in May 1999 where one published document contradicted another.
So, how can we resolve this issue? I've already concluded that, based on the number of vendors out there with H.323 products, we can't possibly contact them all and take a vote :-)
Without getting into specific details: at this point, 1 year after the published H.323v3 document, how much effort would it be to try to change the H.323v3 software you have deployed and how much of an impact would that have? Did you also pick up all of the other H.323v3 ASN.1 changes that have been made? See this file for a complete, updated ASN.1 for v3: http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/h2250v3.asn. Of course, it does contain the error we're talking about here, but that is only because I copied the ASN.1 from the published v3 document and then modified it according to the Implementers Guide.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anatoli Levine" alevine@RADVISION.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 6:54 AM Subject: Re: Error in H.323v3 ASN.1
Paul,
RADVision's current implementation matches H.323 v3 syntax (with
"incorrect
field"), also we never had the version which would match
AdmissionRejectReason
from H.323v2 Implementors Guide. Thus if we would move this field now, it
would
rather create interoperability problems so we would like to keep it the
way it
is currently in the H.323 v3.
Best regards, Anatoli
"Paul E. Jones" wrote:
XuPeili and other H.323 Developers,
This does appear to be in error. Unfortunately, this was published this
way
in the H.225.0v3 Recommendation. However, you are correct that a
previous
H.323v2 Implementers Guide was published which contained the aliasesInconsistent field.
So, we have an issue to contend with. I must ask the developer
community--
I do not want to make this change without wide support for making such a change.
Since the Version 2 field was added via the Implementers Guide, it is entirely possible that H.323v2 vendors did not even include it in their ASN.1
So, I need to hear from all of the developers on this issue. This may
have
been addressed, but I don't have notes on this matter. A similar issue
with
the LocationRejectReason was found and I corrected that back in June
when
discussing with everybody that "I would never change the ASN.1 and
more".
Well, unfortunately, it appears that we have one last error-- honestly,
I'm
quite shocked this one slipped through.
So... should the "aliasesInconsistent" field be moved above the "routeCallToSCN" element in the AdmissionRejectReason sequence as shown
in
an earlier H.323v2 Implementers Guide?
Please post and debate this publicly. We need to resolve this matter quickly so as to minimize impact on everybody.
Best Regards, Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "XuPeili" xupeili@huawei.com To: "Paul E. Jones" paulej@packetizer.com Cc: h323implementors@imtc.org Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:42 PM Subject: ;X84: Multiple Call Proceedings in a H.323 call
hi Paul,
In the H225.0v3.asn downloaded form www.packetizer.com the ARJ is specified like this
AdmissionRejectReason ::= CHOICE { calledPartyNotRegistered NULL, -- cannot translate address invalidPermission NULL, -- permission has expired requestDenied NULL, -- no bandwidth available undefinedReason NULL, callerNotRegistered NULL, routeCallToGatekeeper NULL, invalidEndpointIdentifier NULL, resourceUnavailable NULL, ..., securityDenial NULL, qosControlNotSupported NULL, incompleteAddress NULL, routeCallToSCN SEQUENCE OF PartyNumber, aliasesInconsistent NULL -- multiple aliases in request identify
distinct
people }
Since the routeCallToSCN is a new choice in H.225.0v3, I think it
should
be
placed after the aliasesInconsistent choice which is already exist in v2.
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