H.248 Annex C Codepoint Information

Tom-PT Taylor taylor at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Mon May 8 20:59:07 EDT 2000


What I really wanted to do when I started this thread was question whether
all those codepoints from other standards should be reproduced in Annex C.
It's just excess baggage if we don't guarantee that they're up to date, and
a pain if we do.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Groves [SMTP:Christian.Groves at ERICSSON.COM]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 8:42 PM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      Re: H.248 Annex C Codepoint Information
>
> G'Day John,
>
> In the binary Annex C already has a packageID '0'. If people want a
> package name then I'm not adverse to that.
>
> My second point was that new packages could redefine the parameters in
> an appropriately grouped package. This way we get over the problems
> associated with a Q.931v7 problem Tom was alluding to. Annex C was a
> toolkit of parameters that could be used in the early stages of the
> protocol.
>
> To achieve true interoperability for applications and symmetry between
> text and binary I believe that Profiles containing packages and options
> is the only way to go.
>
> Cheers, Christian
>
> John Segers wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was going to say the same thing as Christian (but strange telephone
> > sockets in the UK kept me from doing so): if a reference is provided,
> > the values listed in the value column serve as examples only; normative
> > text is in the references as indicated at the start of the annex.
> >
> > The second point Christian mentioned is an interesting one.  Is the idea
> > that if one defines a package for which there is already an annex C
> > codepoint, the package would just refer to that instead of defining a
> > new codepoint?  If that is the intention, we'd better give annex C a
> > package name...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John
> >
> > Christian Groves wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Tom,
> > >
> > > References are included in Annex C and the text at the start says that
> > > the reference is the normative text. I personally would envision that
> > > most changes to codepoints would be contained in packages. ie. if we
> use
> > > packages for defining properties then we align the text and binary
> > > encodings of H248. That way we don't need to continuously update SDP
> and
> > > Annex C to match.
> > >
> > > Regards, Christian
> > >
> > > Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > H.248 Annex C is by concept derivative in nature -- it provides the
> means to
> > > > reuse codepoints from a variety of other standards.  As it currently
> stands,
> > > > it reproduces these codepoints in the "Value" column.  I am
> concerned that
> > > > this could present a maintenance nightmare.  It would make more
> sense to
> > > > point the user to the specific reference in the other standard and
> leave it
> > > > at that.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Taylor
> > > > Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961
> > > > E-mail: taylor at nortelnetworks.com
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > > listserv at mailbag.intel.com
> >
> > --
> > John Segers                                  email: jsegers at lucent.com
> > Lucent Technologies                                        Room HE 306
> > Dept. Forward Looking Work                      phone: +31 35 687 4724
> > P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA  Huizen                      fax: +31 35 687 5954
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000508/742b8ab6/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list