Documents for the SG16 Meeting
Paul E. Jones
paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Wed May 5 05:16:28 EDT 2004
The reasons stated below are not the actual reasons.
The main reason is the fact that the standard doesn't state anything
about conflicts that arise because of uni/bi-direction-ness of channels.
Since H.324 can open video channels as bi-directional or
uni-directional, such conflicts are quite common.
In the Geneva meeting, it was suggested to add a new chapter into the
standard about this and a new appendix with the illustrations.
From: Dave Lindbergh [mailto:lindbergh at 92f1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:47 PM
To: itu-sg16 at external.cisco.com; Tsahi Levent-Levi
Cc: Roni Even; Dave Lindbergh; Paul Jones <paulej at packetizer.com>
Subject: Comments on AVD-2464 (H.245 OLC Master/Slave conflicts)
I regret that I will be unable to attend the Beijing meeting.
Re AVD-2464, (on H.245 OLC Master/Slave conflicts), the proposed
appears to be redundant with the existing text in C.4.1.3/H.245 and
Perhaps I misunderstand.
If I remember correctly, this issue was discussed in Geneva, and one of
reasons given for adding this text was that some implementations do not
follow the procedures of C.4.1.3 and C.5.1.3 correctly (that is, they
handle Master/Slave OLC conflicts per those clauses, which can break
If that is the main motivation, I suggest that it would be better to
out the existing text of C.4.1.3 / C.5.1.3 of H.245 to the implementors
they can correct the bug, than to add redundant text, which may make it
more difficult to read and understand H.245. This could have the
unintended effect of making mistakes in understanding H.245 more likely
adding complexity to the document), rather than less.
Best regards to all,
100 Minuteman Road
Andover MA 01810 USA
Voice: +1 978 292 5366
Email: lindbergh at 92F1.com
H.320, H.323 video by arrangement
More information about the sg16-avd