Roni,
The reason for the addition of this text to H.323v3 was the death of what was formerly known as H.450.8 (SS-CoC, Conference out of Consultation), which I will refer to hereafter as H.450.CoC for convenience. H.450.CoC described an alternative method for setting up conferences out of consultation which, if decided, would have left us with alternative, incompatible methods of achieving the same feature. I wrote documents on the subject for the Monterey meeting (one APC, one TD, if I remember rightly), and a revised version for Santiago, explaining how the behaviour required by H.450.CoC could be achieved without it. It was felt that setting out the procedure in a standard was a useful thing to do, but that H.450.CoC was unnecessarily heavyweight. The natural conclusion of that was to write up the procedures allowed by earlier versions of the standard explicitly in H.323v3.
Hence: 1. It IS a minor change, because it doesn't actually change anything (beyond the addition of a single releaseCompleteReason) - it merely sets out how protocol already in existence can be used to achieve a particular aim. 2. Although the text was not agreed in Monterey as part of H.323v3, its basis was discussed at other points in the Monterey meeting as well as at Santiago. 3. It must have some use in the standard, to clear up misconceptions. The writers of H.450.CoC (who are extremely familiar with the H.323 family of standards) obviously felt H.450.CoC was necessary (or they wouldn't have put in the significant effort of writing it!) - whereas you're saying that the text being added was already part of the protocol (with which I agree).
I find it hard to see your argument as self-consistent incidentally - if, as you say, the added text is "just a procedure that is already part of the previous text" (with which I agree), then surely as such it constitutes a minor change!?
Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. ENGLAND Phone: +44 1753 661 359 email: cpurvis@madge.com
-----Original Message----- From: Roni Even [mailto:Roni_e@ACCORD.CO.IL] Sent: 29 June 1999 8:24 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
Hi, As far as I see in the Santiago meeting summary the decision was to decide H.323V3 in 2/00. Where will we decide on 9.99 I did not see any meeting scheduled. A lot of text was added during the Santiago meeting about Conference out of Consultation which I see as just a procedure that already is part of the previous text and I cannot see why it was added at the first place. I intend to submit an APC about this for the Berlin meeting. I think that adding two pages of text to the document that was agreed in Monterey is not a minor change.
Roni Even VP Product Marketing Accord Video Telecommunication Email: roni_e@accord.co.il Tel: +972-3-9251412 Fax: +972-3-9211571
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:21 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September
Folks,
We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine
version 4
in February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that people can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU by 30 June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for decision in Septemer.)
This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document that was determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the document for any errors or omissions.
The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since version 2.
Please direct any comments on the document to me.
The document can be found here:
ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc
Best Regards, Paul E. Jones DataBeam Corporation