Hi, The reasons stated below are not the actual reasons. The main reason is the fact that the standard doesn't state anything about conflicts that arise because of uni/bi-direction-ness of channels. Since H.324 can open video channels as bi-directional or uni-directional, such conflicts are quite common. In the Geneva meeting, it was suggested to add a new chapter into the standard about this and a new appendix with the illustrations. Tsahi -----Original Message----- From: Dave Lindbergh [mailto:lindbergh@92f1.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:47 PM To: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com; Tsahi Levent-Levi Cc: Roni Even; Dave Lindbergh; Paul Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> Subject: Comments on AVD-2464 (H.245 OLC Master/Slave conflicts) Hi all, I regret that I will be unable to attend the Beijing meeting. Re AVD-2464, (on H.245 OLC Master/Slave conflicts), the proposed material appears to be redundant with the existing text in C.4.1.3/H.245 and C.5.1.3/H.245. Perhaps I misunderstand. If I remember correctly, this issue was discussed in Geneva, and one of the reasons given for adding this text was that some implementations do not follow the procedures of C.4.1.3 and C.5.1.3 correctly (that is, they don't handle Master/Slave OLC conflicts per those clauses, which can break interworking). If that is the main motivation, I suggest that it would be better to point out the existing text of C.4.1.3 / C.5.1.3 of H.245 to the implementors so they can correct the bug, than to add redundant text, which may make it more difficult to read and understand H.245. This could have the unintended effect of making mistakes in understanding H.245 more likely (by adding complexity to the document), rather than less. Best regards to all, --Dave Lindbergh ---------- Dave Lindbergh Polycom, Inc. 100 Minuteman Road Andover MA 01810 USA Voice: +1 978 292 5366 Email: lindbergh@92F1.com H.320, H.323 video by arrangement