Pete,
Sorry. I did indeed believe that you were saying that a vendor could take ownership of an IE, which would be a proprietary and rather dangerous solution. "We" or "SG16" in place of "you" might have been a better choice of words. Your first solution is still proprietary, though. Your counter argument is weak because one could use it for all otherwise proprietary features, e.g., "only send H.261 on a channel established for H.263 to an entity that you trust to expect this."
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell@BTINTERNET.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 6:27 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
Paul,
I disagree that these are proprietary solutions.
The first is a matter of policy and so falls into a slightly grey area, but ideally the standard would say something like 'only send presentation restricted information to an entity that you trust to honour the request.'
The second is definitely NOT an action you could take at a proprietary level as the standards body still holds the right to define new IEs. Any such action would have to be approved by the standards body. When I said '...YOU could take further ownership...', the 'you' was intended to refer to SG16.
As such a change is small and localised, it would be safe to implement it even if it was mentioned only in a determined document (which is the way the procedure is supposed to work after all anyway!) which could be achieved at the Chile meeting. A fix in the ASN.1 would have to wait for the decided version as that needs to wait until all such additions are present.
Pete
============================================= Pete Cordell pete.cordell@btinternet.com =============================================