The term "Package" is already used by H.248. I do not like the term "Generic Feature". "Generic Parameter" was a good and appropriate name - I propose to keep it as proposed by Paul in the current v4 draft.

Karl

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Gesendet am: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 20:23 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Betreff: Re: Comments on H.225v4 and H.323v4

Morgan,

...

H.323 /p75: The change of name from 'package' to 'parameter' is inappropriate. If the name has to be changed from 'package', it should be changed to genericFeature.

I proposed this change, because the word "package" conflicted with H.248 "packages" and I thought that it was too confusing. GenericParameter seemed like a reasonable name. I don't like the idea of calling it a "generic feature", because the structures in themselves are not "features". One uses the "generic parameter" structures in order to implement "features".

How about "generic fields" or "generic elements"? I still prefer "generic parameter" over those.

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