<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.65">
<TITLE>RE: Deficiency in Annex M, specifically M.2?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Hi Francois,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Are you saying that even if the OID hierarchy is underneath</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ITU H 225, it is still not advisable to enumerate non-ITU variants?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I am not very knowledgeable about OID manners so I didn't realize</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> this is frowned upon.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>No, I'm saying the current OID for ISUP refers specifically to an ITU-T Recomendation, not the concept of "ISUP" (the OID is owned by ITU). To </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>refer to, lets say, an ANSI version would require an ANSI OID.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Regarding variants for QSIG, I suppose you could have a complicated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> OID hierarchy underneath Annex M (1) that lists the version for each</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> functional area (basic call, generic protocol, supp services, etc).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> There's no reason the hierarchy can't be different underneath each</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Annex M protocol, is there?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yeah. So this seems to be too complicated, which is why we just say "QSIG".</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> My original concern was for ISUP - I take it the ability to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> discriminate version(s) is important for QSIG as well?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I don't think it is as important since most implementation have already </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>converged to the ISO standard</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>