RE: pktcSigDevCodecTable request for clarification

...
> > The problem is that "other(1)" has no strict
> > interpretation.
> > If it would be impossible to include RFC 2833, things would
> > be clear, but
> > now there is a "back door" through "other(1)".
> Are u suggesting we remove other? It means "more" codecs are
> support but it is not specific.

I am not if my suggestion regarding the "MUST NOT" is adopted.

Then again, what is the difference between "other(1)" and "unknown(2)"? This
is maybe a second issue that could use some clarification :-)


...
> Isn't your pb solved by this MUST NOT though? An MTA vendor
> that includes 2833 events as part of this table fails to meet
> this requirement, no?

This would indeed solve the problem, because it makes it clear what belongs
in the table and what does not.


Thanks,

David

_____________________________________________________
David De Reu
tComLabs
Stapelplein 70/004 – 9000 Ghent – Belgium
Tel: +32 9 269 22 91 – Fax: +32 9 329 31 74
www.tComLabs.com
_____________________________________________________