Francois,
We should not be taking a poll as to whether something would break existing implementations. What about vendors that we don't ask, that don't respond, or are out of the loop for some reason? A standard is a contract of sorts. Breaking contracts is a bad thing in part because future contracts cannot be depended on.
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 7:34 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
I fully agree with Orit.
So far, I haven't heard of anybody that actually implemented clearing the call if both fastStart and h245Control are present in SETUP. I would argue, it would be a very bad implementation, regardless of what they interpreted the spec saying.
This being said, it seems that it will not create any interoperability problems. The *worst* case scenario (here again, I haven't heard of anybody that actually implemented it that way) is that the call would proceed as fast
tunnelling (as per the spec) and ignore the fast start.
The benefits of doing the fastStart and the fast tunnelling at the same time far outweight the theoretical backward compatibility problems.
If anybody wants to revoke the Osaka agreement, contributions in Portland are welcomed. ;^)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com