Subject: RE: [Megaco] Fax call Flow for discussion and comments required

From: "Miao, Kai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:07:00 -0400

The following properties have been defined in T38 annexes. But as far as
Megaco is concerned, I have noticed a few conflicts as which descriptor each
of these properties belong to. For example, the call flow in T38 Annex E is
direct conflict to H248 Annex F. 

Can any one shine some light as to what it going on in this regard?

Thanks,
Kai Miao

=========================================================================

T38FaxVersion

T38MaxBitRate

T38FaxFillBitRemoval

T38FaxTranscodingMMR

T38FaxTranscodingJGIB

T38FaxRatemanagement

T38FaxMaxBuffer

T38FaxMaxDatagram

T38FaxUdpEC

T38FaxProtocol(IFP transport method)

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: "Gunnar Hellstrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:01:17 +0200

Kai,
I have made a very brief analysis of the correspondence between the
mentioned T.38  properties and H.248 Annex F properties.

Most of them are straightforward.
It would of course be very fruitful to draw more call flows to demonstrate
how T.38 maps to H.248 Annex F. If lacking or conflicting functionality is
then found, proposals for resolution can be made resulting in additions or
modifications in any of the involved documents.

Here is the result of my brief analysis

     T.38 property                  H.248 Annex F property ( mainly in
package ipfax )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
T38FaxVersion					T38Version

T38MaxBitRate					Transmission Speed    (also related to transmission speed
property in the fax package )

T38FaxFillBitRemoval				T.38 Capabilities

T38FaxTranscodingMMR				T.38 Capabilities

T38FaxTranscodingJGIB				T.38 Capabilities

T38FaxRatemanagement				Comes implicitly from ipfaxtransport

T38FaxMaxBuffer					T38MaximumBuffersize

T38FaxMaxDatagram					T38MaximumDatagramsize

T38FaxUdpEC						T.38 Capabilities

T38FaxProtocol(IFP transport method)	IPFaxTransport

----------------------------
So, the property mapping looks OK to me.
Can you please explain what call flow conflict you have found, and if you
have any proposal for solution of the conflict.

Best regards

Gunnar Hellström ( editor of H.248 Annex F )
--------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor AB
Tel +46 708 204 288
E-mail [email-masked]
WWW:     http://www.omnitor.se

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miao, Kai [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 5:07 PM
> To: 'James Rafferty'; 'Terry L Anderson'; 'Zahid Anwar'
> Cc: [email-masked]'; Gunnar Hellstrom (E-mail); Glenn Parsons (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Megaco] Fax call Flow for discussion and comments required
>
>

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:30:13 -0400

I submitted a list of errors (typos, H.248 message misuse etc) in T.38 Appendix V to the Q.14 folks at Porto
Seguro (informally during the meeting) after talking to Les Brown.  I thought that they were going to look
over my list and discuss whether changes were needed at one of their sessions but I am not certain this
occurred since I was in other sessions.  If you have not seen my list and would like another copy I can find
it somewhere.

--

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:908.582.7013   Fax:908.582.6729
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla