On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Sat Jun 3 06:40:39 EDT 2000


Paul, Francois, and others,

If we were able to get consensus here, I believe we could add a field to the
SETUP-UUIE.  I'd rather not put it in the H323-UU-PDU, since it is intended
for SETUP only as a means of allowing H.245 to used with fastConnect in a
backward compatible manner.

We have an entire proposal on verbiage to be added to H.323.  I'll have to
review that to see what needs changing-- but there's actually a lot of
description.

Can we agree to introduce a new "earlyH245" field to go along with
"fastStart" in the SETUP?

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Long" <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4


> Paul,
>
> While not ideal (nothing is), that's a safe, workable solution. I like it.
> Are you proposing adding the new component to the H323-UU-PDU or the
> Setup-UUIE type? Both locations have their merits. This then should be the
> new text for section 8.2.1/H.323: "The calling endpoint shall not include
> both a fastStart element and encapsulated H.245 messages in h245Control in
> the same Setup message. However, the calling endpoint may include both a
> fastStart element and encapsulated H.245 messages in earlyH245Control in
the
> same Setup message." And then explain what the called endpoint is supposed
> to do when fastStart and earlyH245Control are present. While we're at it,
> maybe we should define a separate type, i.e.,
>
> H245Control ::= SEQUENCE OF OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
>                                                 -- each octet string may
contain exactly
>                                                 -- one H.245 PDU
>
> But now how do the two components, h245Control and earlyH245Control
> otherwise relate to each other, i.e., when fastStart is not included?
Should
> we say that if one is present the other shall not be present? That would
be
> the clearest, IMO. Not much is gained by allowing both.
>
>
> Remember, the first rule of standards revision is (everybody repeat after
> me)...
>         "Primum non nocere" ("First do no harm.")
>                 - the Roman physician, Galen
>
> Paul Long
> Smith Micro Software, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 8:14 PM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
>
>
> Francois,
>
> I agree that the behavior is desirable, but I still argue that it will
> break backward compatibility.  If we can agree with a new field
> "earlyH245" as a special field for SETUP to do essentially the same
> thing, but only for V4, I would be quite happy-- we get the same end
> result without V3 and V2 compatibility issues.
>
> I do not want to wait until Portland.  The Whitepaper drafts are due
> before then and I hope that that meeting will be focused on only
> critical issues in H.323 and that most of our time will be spent on
> further development of Annexes and perhaps forward thinking on V5 :-)
>
> 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



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list