H.323 Annex I

[Stephan Wenger]

Folks,

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.

Stephan

P.s. Personally, I would be much in favor of letting Annex I die
the peaceful death it deserves -- given the amount of support
it receives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com