<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003>Paul,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=794122408-17092003>I
still don't see why the existing version field in the t38FaxProfile isn't
sufficient and how an additional syntax2002 field would help much.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=794122408-17092003>If an
old implementation returns an unrecognised version field, why should it drop an
unrecognised new field? So those implementations still won't behave as expected.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=794122408-17092003>The
only case where syntax2002 would improve things seems to be with version
0/1 implementations that understand the version field and answer incorrectly by
returning a "version = 2" field unchanged. Am I right?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=794122408-17092003>Ernst</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>-----Ursprüngliche
Nachricht-----<BR><B>Von:</B> paulej@PACKETIZER.COM
[mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM]<BR><B>Gesendet am:</B> Mittwoch, 17. September
2003 06:26<BR><B>An:</B> itu-sg16@external.cisco.com<BR><B>Betreff:</B> Re:
H.323 Fast Connect and Versioning</DIV><BR></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Anatoli,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>So, I think the first step for T.38 is to add
the syntax2002 field. Following that, we need to go back and more
clearly define versioning issues for all sub-protocols, including T.38,
V.150.1, V.ToIP, V.VBD, etc. All of those will present similar
issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>