H.323 Annex I
stewe at CS.TU-BERLIN.DE
Tue Feb 6 05:35:08 EST 2001
At 04:47 PM 2/5/2001 -0800, Adam Li wrote:
>Dear Mr. Baese, and Q.3 experts,
>First, since I haven't got Mr. Baese's opinion on what we pointed out in the
>last email, I would like to repeat one more time and seeking a definite
>answer (i.e., agree or disagree with your reasons).
What is the point of even discussing conditions where entities
(be it slices or partitions) are bigger than the MTU size? No
reasonable implementation would do this.
>For the following in the testing condition documents "When the Annex K
>and/or Annex V is used, the length of the slice should be such to make
>packets fit in the length of segment to avoid segmentation of the IP packet
>(for fixed segment-loss-rate channels, see below)."
I'm not sure whether this sentence is the best possible wording
to describe that a packet should be smaller than the MTU
size. But this is just a matter of wording anyway.
P.s. Personally, I would be much in favor of letting Annex I die
the peaceful death it deserves -- given the amount of support
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