Dave, Sorry, but I won't be in Monterey. I agree with what you say, except that I would go further and state that there is always a one-to-one mapping between H.225.0 and H.245 protocolIdentifiers via H.323. For example, H.225.0v1 => H.323v1 => H.245v2 and H.245v2 => H.323v1 => H.225.0v1 H.225.0v2 => H.323v2 => H.245v3 and H.245v3 => H.323v2 => H.225.0v2 This is already implied by the Summary section of H.323 starting with version 2. I think it's clear, but you could add clarification text if you like. IOW, for example, an EP cannot use H.245v2 and H.225.0v2 in the same call. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Walker [SMTP:dave_walker@Mitel.COM] Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:36 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions This thread seemed to be moving towards a consensus. Is anyone planning to submit a contribution at Monterey? Pete? Paul? Since the developing consensus seemed to be that H.225.0 protocol identifier also identifies the version of H.323, I would like to add a provision that in the absence of any H.245 protocol identifier, that there be an implied linkage between H.323 version and H.245 version. That is, if any ASN.1 structure defined in H.245 is received prior to reception of an H.245 protocol identifier, the H.245 version used shall be that which is explicitly required by the H.323 version identified by the H.225.0 protocol identifier in use. This would apply to an OLC structure in fastStart for example. Dave Walker Mitel Corporation Ontario, CANADA