Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions
Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Fri Jan 29 13:21:07 EST 1999
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.
Smith Micro Software, Inc.
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
planning to submit a contribution at Monterey? Pete? Paul?
Since the developing consensus seemed to be that H.225.0
identifier also identifies the version of H.323, I would like
add a provision that in the absence of any H.245 protocol
that there be an implied linkage between H.323 version and
That is, if any ASN.1 structure defined in H.245 is received
to reception of an H.245 protocol identifier, the H.245
used shall be that which is explicitly required by the H.323
identified by the H.225.0 protocol identifier in use. This
apply to an OLC structure in fastStart for example.
More information about the sg16-avd