On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
pete at TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM
Wed Jun 7 05:03:37 EDT 2000
I can see that from the words you can deduce that fastConnect and H.245 can
be present in the same reply, but are we sure that that is the intent of the
authors, and also how implementors will read it?
Also, it would be interesting to know whether the restrictions were in the
original text or placed in later. If they were put in later, the text may
well be fudged somewhat in its accuracy, as quite often such fixes are put
in in panic and not so well thought through.
pete at tech-know-ware.com
+44 1473 635863
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Long <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Sent: 07 June 2000 07:36
Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
> Bob (Jane?),
> H.323 allows the message that carries the accepted FC channels, e.g.,
> Alerting, to also carry tunneled H.245 messages. What you may be thinking
> is that 8.2.1/H.323v3 (see below) says that an EP cannot tunnel H.245
> _prior_ to the call-signaling message that carries the accepted FC
> It's okay to do it in the same message, though.
> "The sending of encapsulated H.245 messages or the initiation of the
> separate H.245 connection by either endpoint prior to the sending of a
> message containing fastStart by the called endpoint terminates the Fast
> Connect procedures."
> Paul Long
> Smith Micro Software, Inc.
> "Primum non nocere"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jane Hua [mailto:huajane at YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:51 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
> The problem is that inclusion of an H.245 message in the tunnel
> FastStart according to section 8.2.1 of H.323. This could be
> by using the early H.245 element for the replys so that FastStart could
> At least this mechanism would make it easy to know that the responder
> called endpoint) was able to overlap FastStart and H.245.
> Bob Gilman rrg at lucent.com +1 303 538 3868
> Paul Long wrote:
> > Bob,
> > H.323 only says that fastStart and h245Control cannot both be included
> > _Setup_, so it could indeed be included in the Setup-UUIE type.
> > Paul Long
> > Smith Micro Software, Inc.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan at ICN.SIEMENS.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:27 AM
> Hi All,
> As far as my understanding goes, the purpose of prohibiting both
> fastStart and H.245 tunnel in SETUP was to avoid race conditions in two
> tunnels (fastStart can also be considered as a H.245 tunnel with
> different procedures). Here we are adding a new tunnel which will lead
> to more such race scenarios until proper care is taken in defining the
> The decision on this should not be like a voice vote in Congress. The
> procedures should be clearly documented and circulated over the
> reflector and let people argue on those concrete documented steps.
> Let us see, can we fix the problem introduced by introduction of
> Jane Hua
> > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
> > Paul,
> > It would be required in the SETUP, CALL PROCeeding, ALERT, FACILITY,
> > CONNECT message in that all of these messages can be sent before Fast
> > Start
> > is completed or may not be present with Fast Start elements based on
> > Bob
> 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