Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions

[Paul Long]

Dave,

Sorry, but I won't be in Monterey.

I agree with what you say, except that I would go further and state that there
is always a one-to-one mapping between H.225.0 and H.245 protocolIdentifiers
via H.323. For example,

    H.225.0v1 => H.323v1 => H.245v2 and H.245v2 => H.323v1 => H.225.0v1
    H.225.0v2 => H.323v2 => H.245v3 and H.245v3 => H.323v2 => H.225.0v2

This is already implied by the Summary section of H.323 starting with version
2. I think it's clear, but you could add clarification text if you like. IOW,
for example, an EP cannot use H.245v2 and H.225.0v2 in the same call.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Dave Walker [SMTP:dave_walker at Mitel.COM]
                Sent:   Friday, January 29, 1999 9:36 AM
                To:     ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
                Subject:        Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions

                This thread seemed to be moving towards a consensus.  Is
anyone
                planning to submit a contribution at Monterey? Pete? Paul?

                Since the developing consensus seemed to be that H.225.0
protocol
                identifier also identifies the version of H.323, I would like
to
                add a provision that in the absence of any H.245 protocol
identifier,
                that there be an implied linkage between H.323 version and
H.245
                version.

                That is, if any ASN.1 structure defined in H.245 is received
prior
                to reception of an H.245 protocol identifier, the H.245
version
                used shall be that which is explicitly required by the H.323
version
                identified by the H.225.0 protocol identifier in use.  This
would
                apply to an OLC structure in fastStart for example.


                Dave Walker
                Mitel Corporation
                Ontario, CANADA