Charles,

No. Things have been done to try to make writing gateways relatively easy, but it was never "just going to work".

Regards, Chris

"Agboh, Charles" wrote:

Hi all,

Is the flavor of Q.931 found in H.225.0 meant to be backward compatible with the "pure" Q.931?

regards,

charles

-----Original Message----- From: Wuerfel, Randy P [mailto:Randy.P.Wuerfel@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:41 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message

In reading through APC-1939 (draft H.225.0 V4) for the Portland meeting, I noticed that the Progress Indicator IE is shown as "O", optional, in the PROGRESS message. It is also shown this way in my copy of H.225.0 V3. However, in Q.931 the Progress Indicator IE is mandatory in the PROGRESS message.

Is there some reason why, for H.225.0 usage, the Progress Indicator IE in the PROGRESS message is optional rather than mandatory, or was this an oversight?

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

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

-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001

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