Paul,

I believe your latter assumption is correct-- we need the functionality of octet 3a and would prefer to use it as prescribed in Q.931 rather than invent some new "hack" to achieve the same functionality.

I don't believe that the question is unreasonable to ask-- we must find out somehow. Certainly, a decision like this cannot be made lightly and must be made with all interested parties knowing about it. If there are absolutely no objections from any company providing H.323 products, I certainly see no reason why we cannot allow it.

Regards, Paul

----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Long Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 11:58 AM Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide

Randy,

I agree, it has gone on too long, but... :-)

Exactly, you've made my point for me!

1.  One cannot send SETUP to a v1 or v2 EP with the octet-3 extension
   

bit

of calling party number set to 0, because H.225.0 v1 and v2 says that it

shall

be set to 1.

2.  An H.323 entity cannot know (through in-band means) the version of
   

the

destination EP before it sends SETUP.

3.  Therefore, an entity can never send SETUP to an EP with the
   

extension

bit set to 0 and octet 3a present.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Either nobody understands what

I'm

saying, or they do but really really REALLY want to use octet 3a "the way

God

intended it to be used" :-) regardless of whether it violates some

revisions

of H.225.0 and risks breaking compliant implementations. I believe the

latter

is the case, but nobody wants to admit it.

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Wuerfel, Randy P [SMTP:Randy.P.Wuerfel@ICN.SIEMENS.COM]
    Sent:   Friday, May 14, 1999 10:18 AM
    To:     ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
    Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide

    Perhaps this discussion has gone on too long, however I just

wanted to

point out that when Paul uses the phrase "an EP cannot send a SETUP

message

to a v1 or v2 EP ...", the phrase has no meaning (at least to me). We support users (people!) on our H.323 system that register with a GK. The users are mobile, and can thus register from any EP. Thus, when I initiate

a

call, my ARQ indicates a destinationInfo alias address of a user that may

at

that moment be using any type of an EP. Since my EP doesn't attempt to match a transport address with an EP type (which would be a triviality anyway), I have no idea of the EP type (v1, v2 or in the future v3) when I

send

the Setup message.

    Don't I need an H.225.0 message returned from the destination EP

before I can determine its type?

    Please consider the proposals that Karl Klaghofer has made to

resolve

this issue in Santiago.

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