Re: Use of IRR by Gateways

Paul,

I was explaining what the Recommendation actually requires and what vendors have implemented, not what "makes sense" or what the Recommendation should have said. While it may be a violation of the spirit of H.323 for an EP to never encode perCallInfo, it is clearly not a violation of the letter of H.323, and implementations have bore this out. If you think otherwise, please cite normative text.

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 3:17 PM To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16; Paul Long Subject: Re: Re: Use of IRR by Gateways

Paul,

I have to disagree. If I have a GK that sends an IRQ with a specific CRV, it means that it wants call details about the call. Why else would it send it?

With a CRV=0, it wants all call details. This included the perCallInfo, as well, and is important for the alternate Gatekeeper procedure (among other things).

So, why is the field OPTIONAL in the ASN.1? Because if the GK queries for a call that does not know about, it returns an IRR to the IRQ without any perCallInfo.

Paul