redundant, conflicting multirate indications
Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Fri Apr 16 00:02:45 EDT 1999
Why does 22.214.171.124/H.225.0v2 say that the extension bit of octet 4 in bearer
capabilities indicates whether the information-transfer-rate field is set to
multirate? Isn't this redundant?
It caused me a problem at the last interop, because someone sent a Setup
message with the extension bit indicating that it _was not_ multirate and the
rate field indicating that it _was_ multirate. My EP looked at the extension
bit instead of the rate field--they should agree, shouldn't they?--and assumed
that octet 4.1 was not present when in fact it was. This caused a decode error
decoding what it thought was octet 5 but was in fact octet 4.1. I have changed
the code so that it now looks at the rate field but was just wondering if
anyone had a better understanding of this situation.
Smith Micro Software, Inc.
More information about the sg16-avd