Tunneling in FACILITY

Pete Cordell pete.cordell at BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK
Thu Nov 26 06:48:26 EST 1998


Senthil,

I think if what you are doing needs you send tokens etc., then the only
way to do this is to send a Q.931 message, which means that you need to
send a Q.931 message!  Therefore I think the original version of the
sentence still holds.

Or perhaps I am missing something!

Regards,

Pete
=================================
Pete Cordell
BT Labs
E-Mail: pete.cordell at bt-sys.bt.co.uk
Tel: +44 1473 646436
Fax: +44 1473 645499
=================================


>----------
>From:  Sengodan Senthil
>NRC/Boston[SMTP:sengodan at NASBPD01BS.NTC.NOKIA.COM]
>Reply To:      Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
>16
>Sent:  25 November 1998 21:37
>To:    ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>Subject:       Tunneling in FACILITY
>
>Folks,
>
>Section 8.2.1 of H.323 states:
>
>"If tunneling is being utilized and there is no need for transmission
>of a Q.931 message at the time an H.245 message must be transmitted,
>then a FACILITY message shall be sent with 'h323-message-body' set to
>'empty'."
>
>I would like to know - for the case where no Q.931 message needs to be
>sent  - if there are any negative implications of setting the
>'h323-message-body' to 'facility' with 'reason' set to
>'undefinedReason'. This would enable the use of several fields that are
>available within the 'Facility-UUIE' structure - such as 'tokens' and
>'cryptotokens' - which would not be available if 'h323-message-body' is
>set to 'empty'.
>
>A rewording of the sentence as below would enable this:
>
>"If tunneling is .... a FACILITY message shall be sent and the
>'h323-message-body' should be set to 'empty'."
>
>Comments?
>
> - Senthil
>
>Senthil Sengodan
>Nokia Research Center, Boston
>



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list