Corrections to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
Logan Modahala
lmodahal at cisco.com
Sun Dec 10 23:56:40 EST 2000
Paul,
I think we should define and use something like NULL CallID with all
zeros.
- Logan
"Paul E. Jones" wrote:
> Sasha, The problem with that is that the Facility message contains a
> call Identifier. The only place this is currently used is in setting
> the multipleCalls flag. I don't think that's an issue, even with
> security compromised. We have to have something that makes the text
> in H.323v4 work-- right now there's no way to send a Facility message
> to change the multipleCalls flag. As an alternative, we could specify
> that the CallIdentifier will contain 16 zeros when sending
> non-call-related messages, as opposed to using the empty
> choice. What's the group's preference? Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sasha Ruditsky
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 8:23 AM
> Subject: RE: Corrections to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
> Hi PaulEverything looks OK with me except the very 1st
> change.Specifically the empty h323-message-body element for
> non call related Q.931 messages.The empty h323-message-body
> does not allow to add tokens to the FACILITY message so it
> cannot be authenticated and its integrity cannot be
> checked.My proposal is to change wording here to allow non
> empty h323-message-body in the case security is
> requiredSasha -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 12:06 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Corrections to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4
> Importance: High
>
>
> H.323 Experts, I have attached a document that
> contains the complete list of corrections for
> H.225.0v4 and H.323v4, with differences against
> the decided text, that we have discussed on the
> mailing list this past week. I would like all
> interested parties to review these changes. I am
> open to changing the wording, but I would like to
> get consensus on making these changes. I have
> asked the TSB to see if we can make these
> corrections prior to the publication of the
> documents. If so, I want to have the support of
> everyone to make these corrections. I don't
> believe that any of these issues should be
> contentious, but without these corrections, I'm
> afraid that many more questions and
> interoperability problems will arise. If it turns
> out that we cannot update the approved text before
> publication, I plan to submit this document (or a
> modified version with comments I receive from you)
> to the next meeting in March. Personally, I'd
> rather correct the Recommendation before
> publication, rather than adding this to the
> Implementers Guide. Thanks,Paul
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20001210/a88554d5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the sg16-avd
mailing list