New draft of H.245

[Corey Gates]

Dear Colleagues,

Below are some comments on the latest draft H.245, ordered by page number,
not importance:

- (Page 8) Should we add some clarification about extension to the
description of the Capability Exchange?  Here is some text that could be
added to the end of the first paragraph:
"When a capability is received which contains extensions not understood by
the terminal, the capability shall be accepted as if it did not contain the
extensions."
What do people think?

- (Page 29) Since we are importing elements from H.235 that are required to
compile the syntax, should we not put the IMPORTS statement at the
beginning of the syntax? Or at least at the beginning of the Encryption
section?  This is not a big issue, but it is kind of buried in the syntax
and an implementor needs to know that the imported types are required to
build a correct implementation.

- (Page 39 and 92) Should there be "cause" codes in the
OpenLogicalChannelReject message for bad "encryptionSync",
"transportCapability" and "redundancyEncoding"?  It seems that there should
be more information about why the channel is being rejected.

- (Page 88, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence) "logical channel" should be
capitalized to "Logical channel" because it starts the sentence.

- (Page 91) In the text concerning "FlowControlToZero", it indicates that
the transmitter should not transmit on a logical channel until receiving a
subsequent "FlowControlToZero" message.  However, this message is only
contained in the OpenLogicalChannelAck.  Shouldn't this be a subsequent
"FlowControl" command?

- (Pages 96 and 43) In the text concerning ModeElement, it refers to an
element called "EncryptedMode"; however, in the ASN.1 syntax there is only
an element called "h235Mode".  I think the text needs to be changed to say
"h235Mode".

- (Page 113) RequestForFloor is described twice, the first one should be
removed.

- (Page 237) In Appendix IV, regarding the extension procedure, should we
add some text clarifying the capability issue?  Here is some proposed text
that could be added to the fourth paragraph:
"Specifically, when an H.245 Capability is extended, the extension shall
not change the meaning of the original capability in such a way that a
terminal which does not understand the extension would need to modify its
operation to use the capability without the extension."
What to people think?


Corey Gates
corey at fvc.com
Tel: +1.408.567.7214
Fax: +1.408.988.7077