H.323 Annex I

Baese Gero Gero.X.Baese at MCHP.SIEMENS.DE
Wed Feb 7 11:27:46 EST 2001

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


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
>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
it receives.

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 mailing list