Frank, For (1), It was felt that this was the appropriate action. I believe that Chris Purvis had some good comments on this topic some time back-- perhaps he can address this. As for (2), absence of the TTL means nothing more than that the endpoint does not support TTL. However, I have implemented a GK such that, if a value is not provided, I will provide one in the RCF. However, to ensure interoperability, I do not expect to get LW RRQs-- I use the old V1 procedure of sending IRQs :-) Nothing has changed in this area since V2. Essentially, the whole procedure is optional, though I will also say highly important and should be implemented by the endpoints. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Derks" <frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM> To: <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:05 AM Subject: H.323's "keepAlive" mechanism
According to the text in section 7.2.2.1 of H.323v4 (11/2000), as a response to a RRQ, a GK may respond with an RCF containing a timeToLive that is equal to or less than the timeToLive from the RRQ. This raises two questions:
1) Why isn't it allowed for a GK to respond with a greater value, or any value for that matter? 2) If the EP does not specify a timeToLive, should this be treated as a value of "0" and does this make it impossible for a GK to impose any timeToLive value?
Frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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