James,

As this was a Corrigendum publish in May 2001, this change actually impacts
T.38 (1998) and there is no specified versioning for this.

In other words, it really does break all T.38 implementations.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Rafferty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Equivalence Support'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul E. Jones"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: [imtch323implementors] Re: T.38 potentially broken by recent
Corrigendum


> Hi,
>
> I asked my colleague David Duehren, the ITU-T T.38 editor, about this
issue
> and he responded as follows:
>
> "...the T.38 version number is an attribute that is exchanged during call
> set up (an OLC I believe in H.323) before any T.38 signal is sent.  The
> OLCs, if memory serves me, are sent via TCP.  The version attribute is
also
> in the SDP.
>
> >From a practical point of view, the "correction" appeared in T.38 version
2
> (there's now a table in T.38 explaining the version numbers) and I doubt
> implementors are going to go back to their old versions and fix them
> (although I think they should).  It's technically feasible to build a
> decoder that works for packets encoded with or without the correction.
>
> In the upcoming V.34 ammendment, we've added some clarification around the
> meaning and use of the version numbers, though it doesn't specifically
> address the corrigendum issue."  (end of Dave's comments)
>
> I would add that for anyone who was actually following the ITU work on
T.38,
> this problem was known right from the point that the ITU made the mistake
in
> the first publication, and
> we confirmed this in a Fall 1999 SG8 rapporteur's meeting, that led to the
> corrigendum to which Dave refers.
>
> Since T.38 is an evolving standard that needs updates to address attribute
> changes, the T.38 versioning was introduced a while back and is being
> carried forward.  As an implementor, it is very useful to know the context
> in which a standard is evolving, whether it is H.323, T.38, SIP, etc..
> Otherwise, it is easy to be surprised, as fixes and improvments get made
to
> a standard.   The H.323 implementor's list has done a pretty good job of
> providing some context on H.323, but the list's coverage of T.38's
evolution
> as it relates to H.323 has been more
> limited.   Hence, this "surprise", which has been known to participants
> within SG8 and now SG16 Q14 all along; unfortunately the ITU publications
> department was not quick to fix the error and get this information
> disseminated outside of the Study Group participants.
>
> James Rafferty
> * -----------------------------------
> James Rafferty
> Senior Product Manager, IP Telephony
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Brooktrout Technology
> 410 First Avenue
> Needham, MA 02494 USA
> Phone:  +1-781-433-9462
> Fax: 781-433-9268
> www.brooktrout.com
> Your Hook into the New Network(SM)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Equivalence Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 12:45 AM
> > To: Paul E. Jones
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [imtch323implementors] Re: T.38 potentially broken by recent
> > Corrigendum
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:20:51 -0500
> > "Paul E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I just recently discovered that the ITU-T published a corrigendum to
> > > T.38 (1998) that apparently breaks backward compatibility
> > for all T.38
> > > devices currently deployed that follow the original 1998
> > specifications.
> > ...
> > > What I would like to know is whether this change impacts
> > your product or
> > > not.  I am aware of many deployed devices on the market today that
> > > employs the 1998 syntax without this ellipsis.  I would
> > like to find out
> > > to what extent this change is going to present problems for
> > companies
> > > represented on various lists and, if I get sufficient
> > support, I want to
> > > take a contribution to the ITU-T SG16 meeting in May to try
> > to resolve
> > > this problem in such a way as to not break backward
> > compatibility and
> > > interoperability.
> >
> > From the point of view of OpenH323 this was most assuredly a nasty and
> > annoying problem! Which version is used seems to vary from product to
> > product and even what version of product.
> >
> > And more importantly, as far as I could tell, it is impossible to
> > determine at run time which version is in use. You must
> > establish this a
> > priory and decode PDU's accordingly. And if a stack does not identify
> > itself sufficiently you get into all sorts of trouble. Not
> > very good for
> > interoperability!
> >
> > I am not sure what they could have done so you could tell at run time.
> > The only thing I could think of was to add a new Type-Of-Message data
> > enumeration type (eg t38-version2) which must be sent before any other
> > data PDU's. The receiving stack can then assume if it is there that it
> > uses the new syntax and if not the old.
> >
> > This is not perfect though as the PDU's are sent by UDP and even with
> > some redundancy you cannot GUARANTEE it will work!
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Robert Jongbloed                        Equivalence Pty. Ltd.
> > Architect Open Phone Abstraction Library (OPAL) & OpenH323
> > Open Source Telecommunication Protocol Libraries
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Quicknet's revolutionary MicroTelco Services offers
> > LOW WORLDWIDE RATES ANY TIME OF THE DAY with
> > No monthly fees! No monthly minimums! No connection fees!
> > US rates as low as 2.9 cents a minute! To see more rates,
> > visit www.microtelco.com
> >
> > ****LIVE VIDEO CONFERENCE NOW AVAILABLE*****
> > CUworld 6.0 is an affordable easy-to-use service providing live
> > visual communication between friends, family and colleagues
> > worldwide. For more information visit www.cuworld.com
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to imtch323implementors as:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to