Francois,
Tunneling and Fast Connect are orthogonal to each other. I can't find where v2 or v3 says that they cannot be done in parallel. As a matter of fact, this is how we implemented it. We are now very aggressive with call setup. What specific problems are there with doing them at the same time? We haven't found any.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:01 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Yes, a few comments: 1 It seems that all current implementations that we could think of would simply ignore the tunnelling information if the fastStart element is present. This means, that there would be no interoperability problems. Fast start would be sucessfull, but not tunnelling, which would mean that tunnelling would have to happen after the SETUP message, as per H.323v2 and v3. 2 There is a small possibility that an implementation would acutally give priority to the tunnelling information instead of the fastStart element (v2 and v3 don't say what would happen if they are present, they just say not to do it). In that particular case, the fastStart would fail but the tunnelling would be successful. So the worst case scenario is that fastStart fails, but "fast tunnelling" is successful. This doesn't seem to me to be a real interoperability problem. In any case, it seems that case 1 is much more likely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com