Hi Paul, Bob and others!
I am attaching a slightly modified version with changes, that
I think, are MUST.
In addition, I have the following reservations:
0. I have a problem with explicitly binding "RAS" with "LRQ".
May be, the default should be "SHALL", "RAS" and "LRQ". But "RAS" shall NOT mean
"LRQ first".
1. In case only the "user" is specified, I would prefer to
always have the "@" sign: "user@". Indeed, it is visually deferent from the
simple "user", but
- It is going to be placed in a different
alias type
- It will make the parsers' logic easier
when distinguishing between the cases: "h323-user@; parameters" and
"foreign-url-with-its-own-parameters@"
- We may not predict today all possible
complications. I am not sure, we will always be able to keep the user part
in a clean "escaped" format.
2. Once we go forward with the currently proposed definition,
we allow for each url link FOR THE REST OF THE H323-URL LIFE only a single
combination of (signaling-protocol, transport-protocol,
transport-protocol-port). In order to specify more then one possibility for
the START procedures, separate URLs will need to be provided.
Any opinions?
Orit, Bob, and Others,
Please disregard the previous e-mail. It contained
a slightly out-of-date revision of the text. I believe the URL proper is
the same in both documents, but the surrounding text has changed.
Again, I welcome feedback.
Best Regards,
Paul