Subject: [Megaco] Packages

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:36:51 +0100

Dear forum,

does anybody know why have been some packages moved from ITU-T Rec. H.248.1
to independent Recs? (for example Rec. H.248.7 was previously known as Rec.
H.248.1, Annex K.)

Best regards 

Bc. Radim Kalfus

Faculty of Eletrical Engineering

Czech Technical University in Prague

[[email-masked]]

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

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:45:35 -0500

This happened about 5 years ago, and was due to the limitation of only
26 letters for Annexes.  Now that we are pushing H.248.60, it was a very
wise move to got to a sub-series numbering scheme.
 
Note that there was no H.248.1 Annex K.  It was H.248 Annex K.  H.248
was renumbered to H.248.1 at the same time that the Annexes were
renumbered.
 
Kevin

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Packages

Dear forum,

does anybody know why have been some packages moved from ITU-T Rec.
H.248.1 to independent Recs? (for example Rec. H.248.7 was previously
known as Rec. H.248.1, Annex K.)

Best regards 

Bc. Radim Kalfus

[[email-masked]]