Manoj,

I suppose the argument is that it makes it clearer to the implementer what those fields are used for and how they should be completed. We've had confusion in the past over what is supposed to go inside a fastStart element, for example. It's almost worth considering replaying:

h248Message OCTET STRING OPTIONAL with h248Message MegacoMessage OPTIONAL

but people may have had a good reason not to want to do that. Perhaps it was felt that that would require importing too much :-)

I am fairly indifferent on the matter, though I'd prefer not to make changes to the ASN.1 that are not errors. However, if we find errors in the ASN.1 file, I'd consider changing other cosmetic items like this one. My hope is that the ASN.1 file here: http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/h2250v4.asn

is complete and without errors :-)

(Note that it was last updated 18-Jan-2001.)

Paul

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul, Manoj" mpaul@TRILLIUM.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: H248 imported ASN syntax in H.323

Hi All,

Would it not be useful to replace the following ASN.1 syntaxes in H.323 V4:

1. "SEQUENCE OF H248PackagesDescriptor" in RRQ with "SEQUENCE OF OCTET

STRING" 2) H248SignalDescriptor by OCTET STRING in ServiceControlDescriptor

Choice.

This would save importing the complete ASN.1 syntax of H248PackageDesc and H248SignalDesc from H.248. It's like representing H.245 tunneled messages in H.225 as OCTET STRINGS and hence saving the need to import of H.245 syntax. The usage of (1) and (2) as PackageDesc and SignalDesc would be clear from the context.

-Manoj Paul.

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv@mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com