Paul,

The clarifying text below as proposed by Francois looks good to me. It should be added to v4 in this way.

Regards, Karl

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2000 07:34 An: Francois Audet; 'Anatoli Levine'; Paul Long Cc: h323implementors@imtc.org Betreff: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect

Francois,

You proposed the following textual changes (see enclosed in <NEW></NEW>):

_____

The called endpoint accepts a proposed channel by returning the corresponding OpenLogicalChannel structure in a Q.931 message sent in response to Setup, up to and including Connect. <NEW>A called endpoint may choose to repeat the exact same fastStart element in all subsequent message up to and including Connect. Calling endpoints should react to the first fastStart element received in a response message to the Setup message and ignore any eventual subsequent fastStart elements.</NEW> _____

I don't have any problem inserting this text into H.323, but I do fear that people will rely on such repetitions and they may not happen. Indeed, I would state that an H.323 entity shall not expect more than one response to Fast Connect. I don't disagree with this text, because I always encourage developers to be very tolerant of "noise" on the wire-- and I consider repetitive data like this to be "noise". :-)

You call these religious arguments... they might be, but we really need closure on this issue. Unlike the MGCP vs H.248 debates, the world can live with two media gateway control protocols. However, I don't want to see vendors split on implementation issues relating to H.323: that's not good for anybody at all. If we don't come to an agreement on it here and now, you know that we'll be correcting it as a customer fumes over interoperability issues later on. I'd much rather see us agree to something than to bring grief upon our customers.

Can everyone live with the above textual changes? Do we need more? Is it well understood that there may be one and only one response containing fastStart?

Paul