Paul,
One could easily remove the years from those sentences and the text would still be accurate. I believe the intent was not to lock the endpoint to a particular version, but to emphasize a specific procedure first defined in the publication of that year.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" plong@PACKETIZER.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:53 AM Subject: v4 dependent on v2?
(While reviewing H.323v4 for a tunneling thread over on the implementors reflector, I noticed a few unrelated things that concern me to varying degrees. I'll discuss them in separate emails to make it easier to follow the ensuing threads.)
Annexes E and F in H.323v4 are dependent on normative behavior defined in H.323v2 (see below for examples). Besides being rather strange, is this
even
possible because the ITU-T only publishes a single version of a Recommendation at any one time. For example, when v4 is Decided and published, there is no v3, v2 or v1. How can one implement H.323v4 when v2 (or v3 or v1) is not officially available or even in existence?
Annex E: "H.245 shall be transmitted using the H.323 version 2 (1998)
H.245
Tunnelling procedures." Annex F: "If further H.245 signalling is required, they shall perform tunnelling as defined in Recommendation H.225.0 (1998)."
Paul Long ipDialog
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com