Francois,

The bi-directional TCP support was added during the last Geneva meeting. No issues were raised in Osaka. If there are issues with it, hopefully people will find them before November!

We could specify that H.323 use H.245v7-- I do not see any reason why we should not consider that option. The only reason that I did not increase the revision number is that Annex D may be implemented optionally. If somebody chooses to implement H.323v4 without Annex D support, there is nothing they would need from H.245v7.

However, it really makes no difference at all to me. I'll be agreeable with whatever the experts believes makes the most sense.

I'll correct the Annex D field reference-- it's a shame I didn't see that before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Paul

----- Original Message -----

From: Francois Audet

To: SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)

Cc: Paul JONES (E-mail)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:58 PM

Subject: H.323v4 and Annex D

Hi all,

H.323v4 Annex D refers to an H.245 codepoint (t38FaxTcpOptions) that is only present in H.245v7 and not in H.246v6.

How do we fix this? I think it is too late to fix H.245v6 isn't it? The alternatives would be:

Require H.245v7 for H.323v4, instead fo H.245v6
Pull out Annex D of H.323 and make it require a different version of H.245. (Extremely bad idea since the Annex has a lot of other useful material)
Pull out the bidirectional TCP thing we added on-the-spot at the last meeting. At least until the next revision.

Any views? Am I missing something?

Also, there is a reference to something called t38Capability in Annex D: it should be t38Fax. (This is editorial).

-----
François Audet Tel:+1 408 565 5675 mailto:audet@NortelNetworks.com
Nortel Networks Fax:+1 408 565 2375 http://www.NortelNetworks.com