v4 dependent on v2?

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Thu Nov 2 02:11:00 EST 2000


Paul,

One could easily remove the years from those sentences and the text would
still be accurate.  I believe the intent was not to lock the endpoint to a
particular version, but to emphasize a specific procedure first defined in
the publication of that year.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Long" <plong at PACKETIZER.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:53 AM
Subject: v4 dependent on v2?


> (While reviewing H.323v4 for a tunneling thread over on the implementors
> reflector, I noticed a few unrelated things that concern me to varying
> degrees. I'll discuss them in separate emails to make it easier to follow
> the ensuing threads.)
>
> Annexes E and F in H.323v4 are dependent on normative behavior defined in
> H.323v2 (see below for examples). Besides being rather strange, is this
even
> possible because the ITU-T only publishes a single version of a
> Recommendation at any one time. For example, when v4 is Decided and
> published, there is no v3, v2 or v1. How can one implement H.323v4 when v2
> (or v3 or v1) is not officially available or even in existence?
>
> Annex E: "H.245 shall be transmitted using the H.323 version 2 (1998)
H.245
> Tunnelling procedures."
> Annex F: "If further H.245 signalling is required, they shall perform
> tunnelling as defined in Recommendation H.225.0 (1998)."
>
> Paul Long
> ipDialog
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 mailing list