AW: H.225.0 v4 inconsistencies/errors found

Paul Long Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Thu Jun 8 21:19:35 EDT 2000


I know I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll be quiet. Just realize that
(one last parting shot :-) )
1. this change risks undesired behavior (call termination) or at least
undefined behavior (EP crashes? EP accepts?),
2. there is really no way to know whether this breaks existing
implementations (you can't just ask 12 people around a table or 100 people
on an email reflector because many may not actually know the answer and many
more didn't even hear the question), and
3. there are alternatives that are completely safe.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.
"Primum non nocere"

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rkbowen at CISCO.COM]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: AW: H.225.0 v4 inconsistencies/errors found

The backward compatibility issue was debated last year on the mailing
lists and in Santiago (5/99).  No implementor claimed to have a backward
compatibility problem, and it was agreed in Santiago that octet 3a would
be allowed, as shown in H.225.0 v3.  However, now the text is
inconsistent with itself, in that it allows octet 3a but says that the
extension bit shall be set to 1, thus indicating that octet 3a is not
present.  This is an error in v3 that needs to be corrected to indicate
that the value may be either 0 or 1 to indicate the presence of octet

- Rich

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list