Subject: RE: [Megaco] Question on al/on(strict=state)

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:03:44 -0500

I suggest that if you have problems with the Appendix that you bring a
contribution to the next SG16 meeting suggesting we correct it.  We do our
best trying to ensure the Appendix reflects the specification, but we have
been very busy in recent meetings, and instead of concentrating on
informative text we chose to concentrate on the normative text with the
limited time we had.

The whole point of informative text is that it is NOT BINDING.  Those who
are implementing H.248 would be well served to design their implementations
according to the text of the specification.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Tardieu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:58 AM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3Z40:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Question on al/on(strict=state)

On 30/01, Kevin Boyle wrote:

| The Appendix is an example, and is subject to typos.  Please reference 
| the specification for the appropriate grammar.

I understand that. However, why keep the appendix if its content is not only
not normative but also misleading because it is bogus?

  Sam

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

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:10:02 +1100

Hello Sam,

Call Flows are informative. They are narrow focussed, do not reflect all 
implementations or all the information that is required. It is an impossible 
task to document all call flow scenarios. Any implementation that is based on 
informative calls flows is almost certainly "bogus".

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:10:02 +1100

Hello Sam,

Regards, Christian