Paul,
Could we run into problems with some country actually using the extension field? (I think the US always defines it to be zero.) I don't see any other alternative, though.
Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:31 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: New T.35
Folks,
As many of you know, the latest T.35 document supports more than 254 country codes. In the newest document, T.35 says that one or two octets may be used to indicate the country code. If the first octet contains 1111 1111, the second octet will contain the country code.
Unfortunately, the syntax in H.245 does not utilize extension markers, so there is no place to hold second octet for the country code. Therefore, I would like to propose that, both for H.225.0 and H.245, we change the comments in the ASN.1 from:
t35CountryCode INTEGER(0..255), -- country, as per T.35 t35Extension INTEGER(0..255), -- assigned nationally manufacturerCode INTEGER(0..65535), -- assigned nationally
to the following
t35CountryCode INTEGER(0..255), -- country, as per T.35 Annex A t35Extension INTEGER(0..255), -- assigned nationally, unless the -- t35CountryCode is 1111 1111, in -- which case this field shall -- contain the country code found -- in T.35 Annex B manufacturerCode INTEGER(0..65535), -- assigned nationally
This may be a perversion of the t35Extension field, but we have a limited number of options if we wish to support the usage of two octets for a country code in H.245.
What are your opinions?
Best Regards, Paul
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
Dear Q.12-14/16 experts,
At 09:20 +0900 99/06/29, Paul E. Jones wrote: PJ> The document can be found here: PJ> PJ> ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc
Its zipped version is also available as:
ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.zip
Best regards,
Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo@giti.or.jp ***********************************************************
It might be wise to tie in Annex G Text Conversation and Text SET with a few words into the body of H.323 V3.
Do we have a policy to introduce Annexes with some text in the main body or can it hang loose as it does now?
I am not ready with the RTP payload type for text in IETF until later this year, and was aiming at a February decision for H.323 V3 with Annex G.
Regards
Gunnar Hellström
At 20:20 1999-06-28 -0400, Paul E. Jones wrote:
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
----------------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellstrom LM Ericsson
E-mail gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Tel +46 751 100 501 fax +46 8 556 002 06
Mr. Hellström,
My own preference would be that Annex G would make all appropriate references to Annex F and not add additional text in the main body of H.323. I may be mistaken, but I believe that H.323 currently only references Annex A in the main body of the text to point out a mandatory requirement.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: Gunnar Hellstrom gunnar.hellstrom@OMNITOR.SE To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:59 PM Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September - Annex G Text
It might be wise to tie in Annex G Text Conversation and Text SET with a few words into the body of H.323 V3.
Do we have a policy to introduce Annexes with some text in the main body
or
can it hang loose as it does now?
I am not ready with the RTP payload type for text in IETF until later this year, and was aiming at a February decision for H.323 V3 with Annex G.
Regards
Gunnar Hellström
At 20:20 1999-06-28 -0400, Paul E. Jones wrote:
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
Gunnar Hellstrom LM Ericsson
E-mail gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Tel +46 751 100 501 fax +46 8 556 002 06
At 11:59 PM 6/29/99 +0200, Gunnar Hellstrom wrote:
It might be wise to tie in Annex G Text Conversation and Text SET with a few words into the body of H.323 V3.
Do we have a policy to introduce Annexes with some text in the main body or can it hang loose as it does now?
There is no such policy, and it is not encouraged except as needed.
Dale Skran Rapporteur Q13
I am not ready with the RTP payload type for text in IETF until later this year, and was aiming at a February decision for H.323 V3 with Annex G.
I suggest that this be deferred to H.323 V4.
Regards
Gunnar Hellström
At 20:20 1999-06-28 -0400, Paul E. Jones wrote:
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
Gunnar Hellstrom LM Ericsson
E-mail gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Tel +46 751 100 501 fax +46 8 556 002 06
participants (5)
-
Dale L. Skran -
Gunnar Hellstrom -
Paul E. Jones -
Paul Long -
Sakae OKUBO