H.323 URL Specification (second try)
Paul E. Jones
paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Fri Sep 1 10:15:31 EDT 2000
Even if Progress Indicator IE is optional in H.225.0 for sending, it shall
be mandatory to support (and act upon) if received. Otherwise, the rules we
established recently in v4 on the subject of controlling tones and
announcements provided from B (or from a Gateway) to a calling EP A would
not work well.
Note that there are some applications (like Call Park) where we use PROGRESS
message as the first end-to-end backward message which does not necessarily
require a Progress Indicator IE.
Von: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 31. August 2000 19:37
An: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
Betreff: Re: Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message
I kind of vaguely remember that being a bug in an early version of Q.931.
Pretty fuzzy however.
From: Glen Freundlich [ mailto:ggf at AVAYA.COM <mailto:ggf at AVAYA.COM> ]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 7:06 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Progress Indicator IE in a PROGRESS Message
I don't recall intentionally leaving the Progress Indicator IE optional -
looks like a mistake to me.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> This may have been an oversight -- I'm not sure a Progress message
> without a Progress Indicator makes any sense. Having only been
> involved in this area for the last couple of years, I'll have to rely
> on someone else to provide the original reason why this was made
> This IE was also optional in H.225.0 v2. However, section 126.96.36.199 of
> the v4 draft indicates that it is mandatory for a gateway to forward
> this IE from ISDN to H.323.
> Rich Bowen
> "Wuerfel, Randy P" wrote:
> > In reading through APC-1939 (draft H.225.0 V4) for the Portland meeting,
> > noticed that the Progress Indicator IE is shown as "O", optional, in the
> > PROGRESS message. It is also shown this way in my copy of H.225.0 V3.
> > However, in Q.931 the Progress Indicator IE is mandatory in the PROGRESS
> > message.
> > Is there some reason why, for H.225.0 usage, the Progress Indicator IE
> > the PROGRESS message is optional rather than mandatory, or was this an
> > oversight?
> > Randy Wuerfel
> > Siemens Enterprise Networks
> > 4900 Old Ironsides Drive Fax: (408) 492-4666
> > M/S 200 Tel: (408) 492-4375
> > P.O. Box 58075 E-mail:
> > Randy.P.Wuerfel at icn.siemens.com
> > Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 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
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