I kind of vaguely remember that being a bug in an early version of Q.931. Pretty fuzzy however.

-----Original Message----- From: Glen Freundlich [mailto:ggf@AVAYA.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 7:06 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message

I don't recall intentionally leaving the Progress Indicator IE optional - this looks like a mistake to me.

Glen

Rich Bowen wrote:

This may have been an oversight -- I'm not sure a Progress message without a Progress Indicator makes any sense. Having only been involved in this area for the last couple of years, I'll have to rely on someone else to provide the original reason why this was made optional.

This IE was also optional in H.225.0 v2. However, section 7.2.2.23 of the v4 draft indicates that it is mandatory for a gateway to forward this IE from ISDN to H.323.

Rich Bowen

"Wuerfel, Randy P" wrote:

...

In reading through APC-1939 (draft H.225.0 V4) for the Portland meeting,

I

...

noticed that the Progress Indicator IE is shown as "O", optional, in the PROGRESS message. It is also shown this way in my copy of H.225.0 V3. However, in Q.931 the Progress Indicator IE is mandatory in the PROGRESS message.

Is there some reason why, for H.225.0 usage, the Progress Indicator IE

in

...

the PROGRESS message is optional rather than mandatory, or was this an oversight?

Randy Wuerfel Siemens Enterprise Networks 4900 Old Ironsides Drive Fax: (408) 492-4666 M/S 200 Tel: (408) 492-4375 P.O. Box 58075 E-mail: Randy.P.Wuerfel@icn.siemens.com Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075

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