Dear Mr. Baese, and Q.3 experts,

First, since I haven't got Mr. Baese's opinion on what we pointed out in

Dear Stephan, experts, your are completely right and your point is out of discussion, of course. As you mentioned it is a problem with the wording only. The slice length should certainly be used in an efficient way but nobody should be restricted to use it in a special manner. Hopefully this small discussion/misunderstanding is now clarified. Best Wishes Gero Baese ----------------------------------------------------------- Gero Bäse Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 636 53193 Corporate Technology Fax: +49 89 636 52393 Networks and Multimediacommunication CT IC 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- Folks, At 04:47 PM 2/5/2001 -0800, Adam Li wrote: the

last email, I would like to repeat one more time and seeking a definite answer (i.e., agree or disagree with your reasons).

[...] What is the point of even discussing conditions where entities (be it slices or partitions) are bigger than the MTU size? No reasonable implementation would do this.

For the following in the testing condition documents "When the Annex K and/or Annex V is used, the length of the slice should be such to make packets fit in the length of segment to avoid segmentation of the IP packet (for fixed segment-loss-rate channels, see below)."

I'm not sure whether this sentence is the best possible wording to describe that a packet should be smaller than the MTU size. But this is just a matter of wording anyway. Stephan P.s. Personally, I would be much in favor of letting Annex I die the peaceful death it deserves -- given the amount of support it receives. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com