-=> Quoting Arthur Marsh to Richard Town <=-

 AM> George Pajari of Faximum Software has claimed that EIA 
 AM> Standards Proposal 2388 differs from the Rockwell Class 
 AM> 2 implementation in a few ways.
 RT> I don't believe 2388 defined BFT.  
 AM> Which Microsoft wanted, and Joe Decuir of Microsoft has been the
 AM> editor of ITU-T Recommendations T.31 and T.32, doing a fine job by the
 AM> sound of it.

Least there's been no changes from "final draft" to publication there then
:-)

 RT> disinformation that one particular Class2 may not 
 RT> connect or successfully complete fax operations with 
 RT> another because of differences in the implimentation
 AM> Well, some Class 2 faxmodem implementations did not add fill bits to
 AM> short scan lines as required by SP 3288 / EIA 592 / T.32, and would

Aha.  Hadn't come across one of those.

 AM> not provide information from the INFO sequences used between V.34
 AM> modems in the negotiation process.
 AM> It would be great if V.34 modems stored such negotiation information
 AM> in internal RAM for retrieval during or after the session.

That's a good idea.  Amongst Rockwell-oids only Supra seem to have taken
further steps to store such data.  For Zooms we're still able tho to
either interrogate s210 or use %q1 in command mode
 
 RT> explaining that it's wrong to not impliment V42bis when V42 fall-back 
 RT> action occurs?
 AM> Much heat has been expended on the subject. My claim is that ITU-T
 AM> Recommendation V.42bis specifies implementation over LAPM or V.120
 AM> error correction if one is running all ITU-T protocols.

Thanx
Richard



--- FMail/386 1.02