On Sun 18 Feb at 04:53 Ian Smith (3:626/660{at}fidonet) wrote to Arthur Marsh:

 IS> Can you check something - Craig Ford has said that V.34 
 IS> absolutely requires V.8, and thus that V.34 modems _must_ 
 IS> implement V.32bis.  Is that so?

I don't have a paper copy handy, but I think that Lewin Edwards has a printout.

 AM> Les Brown and Jack Moran of Motorola ISG (and ITU-T Study Group 14 
 AM> rapporteurs) have taken interest in the interaction between V.34 modems 
 AM> and echo cancellers, which may see changes made to G.IEC, but not draft 
 AM> V.34 (1996) before their approval.

 IS> It's going to be a little awkward (as far as nodelist flags and such go) 
 IS> if there'll be no difference between V.34 and V.34(96).

Why not just get rid of the modem speed restriction (g,d,r) or define a
nodelist flag V34B to be V.34 (1996) with 33600 bps support?

Interestingly Dick Brandt of ITU-T Study Group 14 is now working as a
consultant for Motorola ISG, and apparently no longer representing Radish.

--- msgedsq 2.1