Randy,
Can one get hold of Karl's proposal without going to Santiago? I haven't seen it yet, and am keen to see what he has in mind.
Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. ENGLAND Phone: +44 1753 661 359 email: cpurvis@madge.com
-----Original Message----- From: Wuerfel, Randy P [mailto:Randy.P.Wuerfel@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: 14 May 1999 4:18 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
Perhaps this discussion has gone on too long, however I just wanted to point out that when Paul uses the phrase "an EP cannot send a SETUP message to a v1 or v2 EP ...", the phrase has no meaning (at least to me). We support users (people!) on our H.323 system that register with a GK. The users are mobile, and can thus register from any EP. Thus, when I initiate a call, my ARQ indicates a destinationInfo alias address of a user that may at that moment be using any type of an EP. Since my EP doesn't attempt to match a transport address with an EP type (which would be a triviality anyway), I have no idea of the EP type (v1, v2 or in the future v3) when I send the Setup message.
Don't I need an H.225.0 message returned from the destination EP before I can determine its type?
Please consider the proposals that Karl Klaghofer has made to resolve this issue in Santiago.
========================================================== Randy Wuerfel IP/Data Networks Development Unisphere Solutions, Inc. E-mail: Randy.P.Wuerfel@icn.siemens.com 4900 Old Ironsides Drive Fax: (408) 492-4666 M/S 200 Tel: (408) 492-4375 P.O. Box 58075 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 3:26 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
Chip,
Funny you should ask. In my first response to Glen, I said that we clear the call, but just a few minutes ago I took another look at the code and found that we completely ignore the calling party number IE in SETUP. Skip right over the sucker. I must have been looking at how we handle the octet-3 extension bit for another IE, e.g., bearer capability (even Q.931 requires it to always be 1).
While it turns out that we accept a call regardless of whether the extension bit under discussion is set, I still stand by my assertion that an EP cannot send a SETUP message to a v1 or v2 EP with the extension bit of octet 3 set to 0 and octet 3a present. I happen to know what my implementation does, and the impact is minimal, but there are bound to be implementations out there that--through no fault of their own--will in effect become "broken" if we decide that this bit can be set to 0 and this octet can be present after all.
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Chip Sharp [SMTP:chsharp@CISCO.COM] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 3:49 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide What does your implementation do if it receives a "0" in theExtension field of Octet 3?
Chip