Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message

[Rich Bowen]

This may have been an oversight -- I'm not sure a Progress message
without a Progress Indicator makes any sense.  Having only been
involved in this area for the last couple of years, I'll have to rely
on someone else to provide the original reason why this was made
optional.

This IE was also optional in H.225.0 v2.  However, section 7.2.2.23 of
the v4 draft indicates that it is mandatory for a gateway to forward
this IE from ISDN to H.323.

Rich Bowen

"Wuerfel, Randy P" wrote:
>
> In reading through APC-1939 (draft H.225.0 V4) for the Portland meeting, I
> noticed that the Progress Indicator IE is shown as "O", optional, in the
> PROGRESS message.  It is also shown this way in my copy of H.225.0 V3.
> However, in Q.931 the Progress Indicator IE is mandatory in the PROGRESS
> message.
>
> Is there some reason why, for H.225.0 usage, the Progress Indicator IE in
> the PROGRESS message is optional rather than mandatory, or was this an
> oversight?
>
> Randy Wuerfel
> Siemens Enterprise Networks
> 4900 Old Ironsides Drive                        Fax: (408) 492-4666
> M/S 200                                 Tel: (408) 492-4375
> P.O. Box 58075                          E-mail:
> Randy.P.Wuerfel at icn.siemens.com
> Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com