RE: Packages
"Kevin Boyle" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.megaco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA413530254@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> |
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 protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:37 AM To: [email protected] 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 Faculty of Eletrical Engineering Czech Technical University in Prague [[email protected]] _______________________________________________ Megaco mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco