----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:18
PM
Subject: Re: H.323 Annex D
By default, I believe that editor would be me. This annex was
intended to work with H.323v2 systems and later, but you are correct that
there was no way to specify T.38 until H.245v4.
Of course, H.323v2 systems used H.245v3. H.323v3 systems used
H.245v3 or higher (the key element). So, I suppose the question is:
is H.323v3 required? Surely not, as there are implementations out
there. We have argued about whether H.323v2 systems could use later
versions of H.245. The outcome was "no"-- perhaps that needs to be
revisited.
Interesting:
I tought H.323v2 used H.245v2... Side issue anyways.
There have been recent changes to H.245 ASN.1 to support T.38.
At least there have been some proposed changes. Unfortunately, I
missed much of that discussion. The meeting report says that those
changes were added to H.245v6.
Mike, is it true that the T.38-related changes from H.245v4 to
H.245v6 were nothing more than additions to H.245-- not "changes", per
se. Also, did the proposed changes (from TD8/WP2, I believe) make it
into H.245v6?
My
understanding would be that the changes were introduced in H.245v4, but had
mistakes that were corrected in H.245v6.
As for Annex D, I am considering just pulling that into the H.323
document, rather than keeping it as a separately published annex--
does anybody object to that? That would certainly address questions
related to references going forward. However, we need to reach a
decision about the current publication. I suspect we need something
for the IG, but the problem is that H.323v2 is "old news" now. What
to do....
I would
support including Annex D in the main H.323v4 document (wich would imply
H.245v6).
The other
alternatives would be to mandate H.323v4/H.245v6 in Annex D. But I prefer
the first
alternative.