(Again, apologies if you've already received this. It didn't bounce off the reflector to me either, so I'm sending it again.)

Pete,

I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't talking about whether someone might be emotionally or "litigiously" upset. My point was that the admittedly silly situation of transmitting H.261 over an H.263 channel clearly violates the Recommendations, regardless of whether I know that the remote entity expects this. Likewise, setting the extension bit of octet 3 in the calling party number IE to 0 and therefore including octet 3a is also a clear violation of H.225.0v1 and v2, regardless of whether the receiving entity expects this non-compliant behavior. There is no way to get around 7.2.2.1's "_shall_ be set to '1'." These are both non-interoperable, proprietary scenarios.

Let me say it in yet another way (and yes I am running out of ways to say it): A v1 or v2 EP must set this bit to 1, and no EP, regardless of revision, must ever set it to 0 if the remote EP is v1 or v2. This is not merely my opinion--this is in effect what H.225.0v1 and v2 say.

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell@BTINTERNET.COM] mailto:[SMTP:pete.cordell@BTINTERNET.COM] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:05 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM

Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide

Paul,

I now understand where you are coming from when you say that the first scheme is proprietary.

However, I think it's slightly different because, although someone might be upset if you sent H.261 data to an H.263 decoder, they are unlikely to sue you for disclosing information that has been requested to be kept private, as might be the case if the calling party's telephone number is displayed when it has been requested not to be. Hence the need for trust, because if the entity you send the information to does not honour your request, you could end up with some very expensive legal fees!

(As a side note, some sort of calling party id is probably required for legal reasons, such as tracing emergency calls. Hence remaining private by not including the calling party id is not an option. I'm not sure if this is what we are talking about , but what is really needed is something that only lets those that are allowed to know to access the information. The case of the switched network is slightly different to that of IP because the former is essentially a secure network behind a firewall. The Internet and most other IP networks does not generally mirror this model and so a different solution is required. What is probably required is a supplementary service that does call tracing using suitable cryptographically secure tokens that are known only to those that are allowed to do call tracing.)

Pete

============================================= Pete Cordell pete.cordell@btinternet.com mailto:pete.cordell@btinternet.com =============================================