H.323 Annex I

[Baese Gero]

Dear Stephan, experts,

your are completely right and your point is out of discussion, of course.

As you mentioned it is a problem with the wording only. The slice length
should certainly be used in an efficient way but nobody should be restricted

to use it in a special manner.

Hopefully this small discussion/misunderstanding is now clarified.

Best Wishes
Gero Baese

-----------------------------------------------------------
Gero Bäse
Siemens AG                  Tel.:  +49 89 636 53193
Corporate Technology      Fax: +49 89 636 52393
Networks and Multimediacommunication    CT IC 2
-----------------------------------------------------------



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