Inconsistencies in the H.225.0/Q.931 text??

Frank Derks frank.derks at PHILIPS.COM
Thu Mar 30 05:54:34 EST 2000


Paul,

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.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
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
Long
Subject: Re: Re: Use of IRR by Gateways


Paul,

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
it?

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
things).

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
perCallInfo.

Paul



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list