<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Francois,</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #800000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The bi-directional TCP support was added during the last Geneva
meeting. No issues were raised in Osaka. If there are issues with
it, hopefully people will find them before November!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We could specify that H.323 use H.245v7-- I do not see any reason why we
should not consider that option. The only reason that I did not increase
the revision number is that Annex D may be implemented optionally.
If somebody chooses to implement H.323v4 without Annex D support, there is
nothing they would need from H.245v7.<SPAN class=920254020-19072000><FONT
color=#800000 size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=920254020-19072000><FONT color=#800000 size=2>I have no
problem with mandating v7 for H.323v4.</FONT> <FONT color=#800000
size=2>It is a small editorial change: a "7" instead of a "6"
;^)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #800000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>However, it really makes no difference at all to me. I'll be
agreeable with whatever the experts believes makes the most
sense.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=920254020-19072000><FONT color=#800000 size=2>Me
too.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>