ITU Approves Editorial Corrections to H.323v4/H.225.0v4

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Wed Feb 7 23:23:43 EST 2001

Dear Mr. Li, experts,

of course finding the best technical solutions that works is
our joint goal and we completely agree we are working for the
ITU for technical not political reasons.

> > it is quite discouraging that our questions remaining
> > unanswered and the positive signs we were sending are
> > ignored still.
> I believe that we are here in ITU to discuss
> technical issues
> and to design the best technical solutions that works, not politics.

On the one hand we can read your avowal to a technical discussion
on the other hand our technical questions are remaining unanswered still.
(first sent on 13.12.2000 and 14.12.2000 and repeated several times
since that time).

Here are several of the questions again:

We are supposed to perform the test reproducible for everybody else
within the standardization community. Which public available software
for H.263 we are going to use ?

concerning your document APC 2018 "Protection Procedure":
c) If the protection is actually done with level p-1 why do one has
    to keep level p somehow ? In opposition to the written text is
    packet #3 in your figure.

d) Can you please explain the meaning of "packet" in
    every case it is mentioned within this paragraph ?

The meeting deadline is approaching. Any further delay
leads to less meaningful results.

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

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list