Pete,
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm a little concerned about allowing a v2 entity to support any version of H.245, including unspecified future versions which may or may not be compatible with what we have now.
So let me propose the following paragraph as replacement text for the offending portion of the H.323 Version 2 Summary section (which begins in the same way).
"Products claiming compliance with Version 2 of H.323 shall comply with all of the mandatory requirements of this document, H.323 (1998), which references H.225.0 (1998) and H.245 (1998). The protocol identifiers used in messages defined in H.225.0 (1998) and H.245 (1998) are specified in those recommendations. An H.323 Version 2 compliant product may also be compliant with other versions of these recommendations, but should not send messages or invoke procedures defined in a newer version of a recommendation than a peer has identified itself as supporting."
Regards,
Dave Walker Mitel Corporation Ontario, CANADA