Sébastien,
Thanks for doing that for us. Hopefully, this will mean we will not find a need to introduce any corrections via the Implementers' Guide.
I trust the H.225.0 editor (copied) will address the editorial issue.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: sebastien.castano@itu.int [mailto:sebastien.castano@itu.int] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:50 AM To: paulej@packetizer.com Cc: itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com; Stephen.Botzko@polycom.com; mperumal@cisco.com; anparvee@cisco.com; s.horne@packetizer.com; olivier.dubuisson@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16
Dear Paul,
I checked ASN.1 modules in H.323v7 and H.225.0v7 as asked by Olivier and
no
error were depicted.
Just a small editing issue in H.225.0v7 in the comments inserted in ServiceControlDescriptor definition: A return line is missing between "-- referenced " and "--
protocol/resource"
Best regards, Sébastien Castano
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: vendredi, 24. juillet 2009 18:28 To: 'Olivier DUBUISSON' Cc: itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com; Castano, Sebastien; 'Botzko, Stephen'; 'Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)'; 'Anisha Parveen'; 'Simon Horne' Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16
Olivier,
Thanks for your careful review. I have copied the respective editors so that they can address these points in their documents.
Editors: Simao requested that we not make the with respect to the way we reference ITU-T Recommendations in H.225.0 and H.323, since that would produce a lot of change marks that are not technical changes. However, for H.460.geo (and H.460.23/24), we should make references according to this guidance.
With respect to H.323 and BER/PER references, the only reference to BER (as far as I know) is one of the Annex M.x sections. There, we do not encode or decode messages, but merely provide a tunneling mechanism for protocols defined elsewhere. As such, I would think we might want an informative reference to BER.
I'll be out of the office next week, so I might be slow in responding to any replies.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Olivier DUBUISSON
[mailto:olivier.dubuisson@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:43 AM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com; Sébastien Castano Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16
Paul,
here are some editorial changes:
- H.323v7:
- it is better to remove the whitespace in front of each opening
parenthesis in an OID as it makes it easier to understand when a number is associated with an identifier and avoid any
confusion in the
case a number without an associated identifier is followed
by a number
(a possible case)
- clause 2: Add a reference to the ITU-T X.680 series as well as to
X.690 and X.691 since both BER and PER are mentioned; I see a normative reference to X.680 in Annex R: This is unusual!
- clause 4: OID is not defined as an acronym for Object-Id (I would
prefer not to use that acronym throughout the text, though!)
- Clause M4.5.3: Add an OID to the ASN.1 module; is this the only
ASN.1 module in that standard?
- M5.3: 'i' missing in OBJECT IDENTIFIER in the first sentence
- H.225.0v7:
- Clause 2 doesn't reference the latest edition of the
X.680 and X.690
series
- Annex H: Add an OID to the ASN.1 module
- Table VI.1: remove leading zeroes within icd-ecma(0012)
- it is also better to remove the whitespace in front of
each opening
parenthesis in an OID as it makes it easier to understand when a number is associated with an identifier and avoid any
confusion in the
case a number without an associated identifier is followed
by a number
(a possible case)
- H.460.geo:
- Clause 2: replace "ISOC/IETF" with "IETF"
- General remark:
As approved by TSAG last year, the new way of referencing an ITU-T Recommendation is "Recommendation ITU-T H.xxx" in clause 2
and "ITU-T
H.xxx" as a reference in the body.
I am Cc'ing Sébastien Castano from the TSB in case he can find some time to check the ASN.1 modules in H.323v7 and H.225.0v7. -- Olivier DUBUISSON, ITU-T ASN.1 & OID Project leader France Telecom NSM/RD/DDEV - BP 50702 - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France tel: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - fax: +33 1 58 15 52 05
Paul E. Jones wrote:
Q2/16 Experts,
There are several draft documents that are scheduled for
consent at
the October/November 2009 meeting in Q2. They are:
H.323v7, H.323
Annex I (use of new FEC procedures defined in the IETF),
H.225.0v7,
H.460.geo (transmission of geographic information in H.323), H.460.23 (NAT determination), and H.460.24
(point-to-point media flow through NAT).
Pointers to the current editors' draft documents can be
found here:
http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/h323/doc_status.html
I would like to kindly request that you give these documents a thorough review and do one of two things:
Submit a contribution to the next SG16 meetingproposing changes
to these texts
Provide your comments via the list or directly tothe editor;
the editor will address any minor editorial issues in the
text and
prepare a contribution for technical changes (if necessary)
I want to keep these documents on schedule, so your input and comments would be very helpful.
Of course, if you have any questions or comments, I am more than happy to provide input.
Thanks,
Paul E. Jones
Rapporteur, ITU-T Q2/16