BG> I'd love to Paul, but the V.34 document is bloody hard 
BG> to obtain.  Arthur in Aust_Modems would be the best 
BG> prospect, I'd imagine.  Nonetheless, there are still 
BG> certain aspects of the V.34 specs which NetComm (i.e. 
BG> Rockwell) has so far chosen not to employ.

PE> Arthur, do you know anything about these claims that Netcomm
PE> doesn't conform to the V.34 spec?  I have serious doubts 
PE> about that claim myself.  BFN.  Paul.

AM> Lewin Edwards has a copy, but if any company were serious about their 
AM> compliance, they'd publish a Protocol Implementation Compliance Statement 
AM> (PICS), which would indicate ranges of optional values supported and some 
AM> claim to support all the required features of a standard.

AM> Half-duplex V.34 operation comes to mind, as do the 200 bps auxilliary 
AM> channels, 64 state Trellis coding...

Lewin, could you reference the spec and tell me whether things
like 64-state Trellis coding are REQUIRED in order to conform
to V.34?  Thanks + bye.  Paul.
@EOT:

---