Error in H.323v3 ASN.1

Anatoli Levine alevine at RADVISION.COM
Wed Oct 4 06:54:59 EDT 2000


Paul,

RADVision's current implementation matches H.323 v3 syntax (with "incorrect
field"), also we never had the version which would match AdmissionRejectReason
from H.323v2 Implementors Guide. Thus if we would move this field now, it would
rather create interoperability problems so we would like to keep it the way it
is currently in the H.323 v3.

Best regards,
Anatoli

"Paul E. Jones" wrote:

> XuPeili and other H.323 Developers,
>
> This does appear to be in error.  Unfortunately, this was published this way
> in the H.225.0v3 Recommendation.  However, you are correct that a previous
> H.323v2 Implementers Guide was published which contained the
> aliasesInconsistent field.
>
> So, we have an issue to contend with.  I must ask the developer community--
> I do not want to make this change without wide support for making such a
> change.
>
> Since the Version 2 field was added via the Implementers Guide, it is
> entirely possible that H.323v2 vendors did not even include it in their
> ASN.1
>
> So, I need to hear from all of the developers on this issue.  This may have
> been addressed, but I don't have notes on this matter.  A similar issue with
> the LocationRejectReason was found and I corrected that back in June when
> discussing with everybody that "I would never change the ASN.1 and more".
> Well, unfortunately, it appears that we have one last error-- honestly, I'm
> quite shocked this one slipped through.
>
> So... should the "aliasesInconsistent" field be moved above the
> "routeCallToSCN" element in the AdmissionRejectReason sequence as shown in
> an earlier H.323v2 Implementers Guide?
>
> Please post and debate this publicly.  We need to resolve this matter
> quickly so as to minimize impact on everybody.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "XuPeili" <xupeili at huawei.com>
> To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej at packetizer.com>
> Cc: <h323implementors at imtc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:42 PM
> Subject: ;X84: Multiple Call Proceedings in a H.323 call
>
> > hi  Paul,
> >
> > In the H225.0v3.asn downloaded form www.packetizer.com
> > the ARJ is specified like this
> >
> > AdmissionRejectReason ::= CHOICE
> > {
> >  calledPartyNotRegistered NULL, -- cannot translate address
> >  invalidPermission  NULL, -- permission has expired
> >  requestDenied   NULL, -- no bandwidth available
> >  undefinedReason   NULL,
> >  callerNotRegistered  NULL,
> >  routeCallToGatekeeper  NULL,
> >  invalidEndpointIdentifier NULL,
> >  resourceUnavailable  NULL,
> >  ...,
> >  securityDenial   NULL,
> >  qosControlNotSupported  NULL,
> >  incompleteAddress  NULL,
> >  routeCallToSCN   SEQUENCE OF PartyNumber,
> >  aliasesInconsistent  NULL -- multiple aliases in request identify
> distinct
> > people
> > }
> >
> > Since the routeCallToSCN is a new choice in H.225.0v3, I think it should
> be
> > placed
> > after the aliasesInconsistent choice which is already exist in v2.
> >
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: alevine.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 344 bytes
Desc: Card for Anatoli Levine
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20001004/3931023f/attachment-0006.vcf>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list