Hello Toby!

I do agree that it clarifies the procedure, however, I would just like to point out that it has already been written in the "Encapsulation of H.245 Messages within Q.931 Messages " chapter:

"A calling endpoint capable of and willing to use H.245 encapsulation shall set the h245Tunneling element to TRUE in the SETUP message and any subsequent Q.931 messages it sends so long as it desires tunneling to remain active. A called endpoint capable of and willing to use H.245 encapsulation shall set the h245Tunneling element to TRUE in the first Q.931 message sent in response to SETUP and in every subsequent Q.931 message it sends so long as it desires tunneling to remain active."

Orit Levin RADVision Inc. E Mail: orit@radvision.com 575 Corporate Dr., Suite 420 Tel: 201-529-4300 ext. 230 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Fax: 201-529-3516

-----Original Message----- From: Toby Nixon [SMTP:tnixon@MICROSOFT.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 9:14 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Clarification of tunneling text in H.323v2

After going back over the Tunneling text in H.323v2 on the airplane home, I wished I had added one more clause to the first and second sentences of the second paragraph of the new section 8.2.3, as follows: "shall set the H245Tunneling flag to FALSE on all subsequent Q.931 messages,". It would then read like this: If tunneling was being used, the endpoint initiating the separate H.245 connection shall not send any further tunneled H.245 messages on the call signalling channel, shall set the H245Tunneling flag to FALSE on all subsequent Q.931 messages, and shall send no H.245 messages on the separate H.245 connection until the establishment of the TCP connection is acknowledged. The endpoint acknowledging opening of the separate H.245 connection shall set the H245Tunneling flag to FALSE on all subsequent Q.931 messages, and shall not send any further tunneled H.245 messages on the call signalling channel after acknowledging the opening of the separate H.245 connection. The fact that this is required is implied by the text that follows (which depends on the flag being set FALSE on subsequent messages), but the insertion of these clauses would make it explicit. Does anyone else think this would be helpful? Should we think about putting this in the implementor's guide? Or am I just being my usual verbose self? * Toby ___________________________________________________________ Toby Nixon, Program Manager - NetMeeting http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting Microsoft Corporation, Applications and Internet Client Group, Redmond WA USA +1 (425) 936-2792 Fax: +1 (425) 936-7329 mailto:tnixon@microsoft.com