[itu-sg16] H.323 Annex I
sasha at radvision.com
Tue Sep 29 10:27:56 EDT 2009
I want to mention that one area which requires attention in this
document is ASN.1 syntax.
It does have quite a few syntactical mistakes.
Now, probably not for this meeting, I wonder what is the real scope of
Should it cover for example non-parity types of FEC, such as
Should it allow using H.323 with fecframe (IETF newest framework for
From: itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com
[mailto:itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E.
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:14 PM
To: itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
Cc: 'Adam Li'
Subject: [itu-sg16] H.323 Annex I
Please review the text for H.323 Annex I:
This document did not get sufficient review at the last Rapporteur
meeting, but I would nonetheless like to consent this text at the
Annex I was substantially re-written, but it is relatively short and the
focus of the document is not changed: it defines the signaling
procedures necessary to implement FEC as defined in IETF RFC 5103, which
obsoletes the former FEC method detailed in RFC 2733. Going forward,
the intent would be that if we want to document anywhere how H.323
devices ought to behave in order to overcome issues with error-prone
channels, we might add additional material to this annex (perhaps even
restructuring it if necessary).
In any case, I would kindly like to request that you review this
document. I will make an effort to re-submit it to this meeting
unchanged as it appear here. However, if you have any comments on the
text, let me know this week or early next week and I'll try to make
revisions and share those with the Experts before I submit the text.
Of course, you are definitely welcome to submit a contribution related
to this text for review at the meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sg16-avd