AW: Comments on H.225v4 and H.323v4

[Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81]

The term "Package" is already used by H.248.  I do not like the term
"Generic Feature".
"Generic Parameter" was a good and appropriate name - I propose to keep it
as proposed by Paul in the current v4 draft.

Karl

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:  Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Gesendet am:  Tuesday, July 04, 2000 20:23
> An:   ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Betreff:      Re: Comments on H.225v4 and H.323v4
>
> Morgan,
>
> > H.323 /p75: The change of name from 'package' to 'parameter' is
> > inappropriate.
> > If the name has to be changed from 'package', it should be changed to
> > genericFeature.
>
> I proposed this change, because the word "package" conflicted with H.248
> "packages" and I thought that it was too confusing.  GenericParameter
> seemed
> like a reasonable  name.  I don't like the idea of calling it a "generic
> feature", because the structures in themselves are not "features".  One
> uses
> the "generic parameter" structures in order to implement "features".
>
> How about "generic fields" or "generic elements"?  I still prefer "generic
> parameter" over those.
>
> Paul
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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