Inconsistencies in the H.225.0/Q.931 text??
frank.derks at PHILIPS.COM
Thu Mar 30 05:54:34 EST 2000
I was explaining what the Recommendation actually requires and what vendors
have implemented, not what "makes sense" or what the Recommendation should
have said. While it may be a violation of the spirit of H.323 for an EP to
never encode perCallInfo, it is clearly not a violation of the letter of
H.323, and implementations have bore this out. If you think otherwise,
please cite normative text.
Smith Micro Software, Inc.
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 3:17 PM
To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16; Paul
Subject: Re: Re: Use of IRR by Gateways
I have to disagree. If I have a GK that sends an IRQ with a specific CRV,
it means that it wants call details about the call. Why else would it send
With a CRV=0, it wants all call details. This included the perCallInfo, as
well, and is important for the alternate Gatekeeper procedure (among other
So, why is the field OPTIONAL in the ASN.1? Because if the GK queries for a
call that does not know about, it returns an IRR to the IRQ without any
More information about the sg16-avd