Re: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Krish,
I believe Pete may be the better person to answer this question.
Essentially, if the Gatekeeper provides the needed feature-- that's great. If it does not, it needs to ensure that the LRQ contains the needed feature information so that the destination Gatekeeper can locate an entity that can provide the features. I believe this logic applies regardless of whether the call is routed or not.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudharsana krishnan P" pskrish@miel.mot.com To: "'Paul E. Jones'" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM; "'H323implementors@Imtc.Org' (E-mail)" h323implementors@imtc.org Cc: pskrish@miel.mot.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: RE: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Hello Paul I was reviewing this document and had a slight doubt related to the
following
Section 1.6
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper shall copy any features that are not provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF, and the features supported by the Gatekeeper.
Case 1: GK routed model should read.
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper shall NOT copy any features that are not provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF, and the features supported by the Gatekeeper.
Case 2: Direct routed model should read.
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper SHALL copy any features EVEN IF NOT provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF.
Did I miss something here
Regards krish
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:27 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Folks,
I have attached what I hope is the final revision of the changes to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4. The additional changes are in response to e-mails
I
have received.
The changes from the last revision include new sections 1.5, 1.9, and 2.2. There are no additional ASN.1 changes.
These changes were necessary in order to align the text between H.323v4
and
H.225.0v4.
Please give me any comments by the end of the business day Tuesday.
Thanks, Paul E. Jones Q.2/16 Rapporteur
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Hi Paul On second reading it is clear to me. My mail was worded incorrectly too. Thanks for the response.
Regards krish
-----Original Message----- From: owner-h323implementors@imtc.org [mailto:owner-h323implementors@imtc.org]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:49 AM To: pskrish@MIEL.MOT.COM; 'H323implementors@Imtc.Org' (E-mail) Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Pete Cordell Subject: Re: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Krish,
I believe Pete may be the better person to answer this question.
Essentially, if the Gatekeeper provides the needed feature-- that's great. If it does not, it needs to ensure that the LRQ contains the needed feature information so that the destination Gatekeeper can locate an entity that can provide the features. I believe this logic applies regardless of whether the call is routed or not.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudharsana krishnan P" pskrish@miel.mot.com To: "'Paul E. Jones'" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM; "'H323implementors@Imtc.Org' (E-mail)" h323implementors@imtc.org Cc: pskrish@miel.mot.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: RE: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Hello Paul I was reviewing this document and had a slight doubt related to the
following
Section 1.6
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper shall copy any features that are not provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF, and the features supported by the Gatekeeper.
Case 1: GK routed model should read.
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper shall NOT copy any features that are not provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF, and the features supported by the Gatekeeper.
Case 2: Direct routed model should read.
If the responding entity is a Gatekeeper that sends an LRQ in response to
receiving an ARQ, the Gatekeeper SHALL copy any features EVEN IF NOT provided by the Gatekeeper into the LRQ. In trying to determine whether the necessary set of features are supported, the Gatekeeper shall examine the supported features of the endpoint to which the ARQ may resolve, either locally or in response to an LCF.
Did I miss something here
Regards krish
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:27 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Final Revision of Changes for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Folks,
I have attached what I hope is the final revision of the changes to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4. The additional changes are in response to e-mails
I
have received.
The changes from the last revision include new sections 1.5, 1.9, and 2.2. There are no additional ASN.1 changes.
These changes were necessary in order to align the text between H.323v4
and
H.225.0v4.
Please give me any comments by the end of the business day Tuesday.
Thanks, Paul E. Jones Q.2/16 Rapporteur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Please send E-mail to contact@imtc.org mailto:contact@imtc.org to subscribe or unsubscribe from this list ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Please send E-mail to contact@imtc.org mailto:contact@imtc.org to subscribe or unsubscribe from this list ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Paul E. Jones -
Sudharsana krishnan P