Dear Colleagues,
Below are some comments on the latest draft H.245, ordered by page number, not importance:
- (Page 8) Should we add some clarification about extension to the description of the Capability Exchange? Here is some text that could be added to the end of the first paragraph: "When a capability is received which contains extensions not understood by the terminal, the capability shall be accepted as if it did not contain the extensions." What do people think?
- (Page 29) Since we are importing elements from H.235 that are required to compile the syntax, should we not put the IMPORTS statement at the beginning of the syntax? Or at least at the beginning of the Encryption section? This is not a big issue, but it is kind of buried in the syntax and an implementor needs to know that the imported types are required to build a correct implementation.
- (Page 39 and 92) Should there be "cause" codes in the OpenLogicalChannelReject message for bad "encryptionSync", "transportCapability" and "redundancyEncoding"? It seems that there should be more information about why the channel is being rejected.
- (Page 88, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence) "logical channel" should be capitalized to "Logical channel" because it starts the sentence.
- (Page 91) In the text concerning "FlowControlToZero", it indicates that the transmitter should not transmit on a logical channel until receiving a subsequent "FlowControlToZero" message. However, this message is only contained in the OpenLogicalChannelAck. Shouldn't this be a subsequent "FlowControl" command?
- (Pages 96 and 43) In the text concerning ModeElement, it refers to an element called "EncryptedMode"; however, in the ASN.1 syntax there is only an element called "h235Mode". I think the text needs to be changed to say "h235Mode".
- (Page 113) RequestForFloor is described twice, the first one should be removed.
- (Page 237) In Appendix IV, regarding the extension procedure, should we add some text clarifying the capability issue? Here is some proposed text that could be added to the fourth paragraph: "Specifically, when an H.245 Capability is extended, the extension shall not change the meaning of the original capability in such a way that a terminal which does not understand the extension would need to modify its operation to use the capability without the extension." What to people think?
Corey Gates corey@fvc.com Tel: +1.408.567.7214 Fax: +1.408.988.7077