Paul,
I think that consistence of references between H.323 and H.225.0 would be a good thing. It would not be good to gain a feature or code point in H.323 that is not supported by H.225.0.
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:12 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Reference which version of Q.931, etc.?
Rich,
Hmmm... editors in disagreement? Perhaps I should read before I post :-). OK, if Rich is willing to make this change, I suppose I can do the same for H.323, though I would guess it is much less work. I took a quick scan and there do not appear to be any issues in H.323, per se, that require attention in order to make this change. Is anyone aware of any issues?
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Bowen" rkbowen@CISCO.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Reference which version of Q.931, etc.?
Hi Bob,
I just want to remind everyone that we agreed in Osaka not to update the Q.931 cross-references, but instead to revert the parent reference to Q.931 (1993) so we (I) wouldn't have to update and verify all of the table references, etc.
However, when I was about to make that change, I noticed that there were references to 1998 versions of other standards (Q.932, Q.850) also, and I was concerned that these other standards might reference the 1998 version of Q.931, so we would have a synchronization problem of another kind. That's why I didn't make the change, and noted this as an open issue.
I also have some concern about referencing a standard that is no longer published.
My preference would be to leave the parent reference as Q.931 (1998) and update the semi-infinite number of cross-references.
I agree the inconsistency has to be corrected. BTW, this also existed in v2.
- Rich
"Callaghan, Robert" wrote:
On of the open issues is the correct version of Q.931 should be
referenced
in H.225.0 and H.323. When v3 was decided, they was updated to
reference
Q.931(1998) instead of Q.931(1993). This is a discussion of the impact
of
this change and how to resolve the problems.
- H.225.0 and Q.931 include a semi-infinite number of references to
table,
figures and sections of Q.931. V3 still references the 1993 items even though the parent reference is 1998. It is possible to update all the detailed references or to return the parent reference to 1993. Either
way
they must be consistent.
- Q.931(1998) introduced a number of changes from the 1993 version. If
we
update v4 to consistently reference 1998, do we want to automatically include all the changes in Q.931?
- If we do accept, by default, the changes to Q.931, do any of these
changes
conflict with the ASN.1 coding that we use? If so, how is this
resolved?
However this problem is resolved, it must be consistent within H.323v4
and
H.225.0v4.
Bob
Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com--
Richard K. Bowen Cisco Systems, Inc. VoIP Session Protocols Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com