Subject: RE: [Megaco] suspected editing errors in T.38

From: Raphael Tryster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:09:26 +0200

No reply received.  Is there another forum to which I should address
questions about ITU-T documents?
 
Raphael Tryster

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] suspected editing errors in T.38
 
The Megaco call flow examples at the end of ITU-T T.38 appear to have a
large number of editing errors.  I am referring to the April 2004 edition.
1. First command in III.2.1 is AuditValue, while in III.2.3 it is
AuditCapability.  I think the former is a mistake. 
2. Step 3 in III.2.1 is missing the m=image line.  I think it is a mistake. 
3. Step 4 in III.2.1 contradicts step 3.  Step 3 mentions codecs 4 and 0,
while step 4 mentions 18 and 0. 
4. Should ftmd/dtfmctyp/dtone be ftmd/dtfm, ctyp/dtone wherever it occurs? 
5. What should ftmd/dtfmctyp be? 
6. Should faxctyp be ctyp wherever it occurs? 
7. Should st, sdtt and dtst be changed to dtt wherever they occur as
parameters of ctyp/dtone? 
8. Should ansced and cedans be ans? 
9. Step 5 in both III.2.1 and III.2.3 says "RTP/2/2 will be assigned", but
step 6 assigns RTP/2. 
10. In III.2.1 step 11, fax/faxstate is assigned value Train.  Should this
be TrainT? 
11. In III.2.1 step 12, fax/faxstate is assigned value TrainNegotiating.
Should this be Negotiating? 
12. In III.2.1 step 19, should fax/dtone be changed to ctyp/dtone? 
13. In III.2.2 step 6, should fax/trpt=T38UDPTL be changed to
ipfax/ipftrpt=T38UDPTL? 
14. In III.2.2 and III.2.4 step 10, should ipfax/trpt=T38UDPTL be changed to
ipfax/ipftrpt=T38UDPTL? 
15. The Notify in III.2.2 step 7 is missing the header. 
 
Raphael Tryster 
 
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:26:03 +0100

I think this is the right list, another forum might be "[email-masked]"
because the T.38 expertise and Recommendation is located in Q11 SG16.

Appendix III/T.38 (04/2004) is informative, meaning that there might be the
outlined inconsistencies in the example H.248 segments. At least, I'm not
aware of any comprehensive review from H.248 side of App. III.

I'd like to propose that you map your comments in a contribution to the
next SG16 meeting, addressed to Q.11 (T.38) and Q.3 (H.248).

- Albrecht

                      Raphael Tryster                                                                                               
                      <raphael@tdsoft.         To:      [email-masked]                                                             
                      com>                     cc:                                                                                  
                      Sent by:                 Subject: RE: [Megaco] suspected editing errors in T.38                               
                      megaco-bounces@i                                                                                              
                      etf.org                                                                                                       

                      23.03.2005 08:09                                                                                              

Raphael Tryster

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] suspected editing errors in T.38

14. In III.2.2 and III.2.4 step 10, should ipfax/trpt=T38UDPTL be changed
to ipfax/ipftrpt=T38UDPTL?

Raphael Tryster