On Thu 25 Jul at 11:50 Richard Town (2:254/235) wrote to Arthur Marsh:

 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.  

Which Microsoft wanted, and Joe Decuir of Microsoft has been the editor of
ITU-T Recommendations T.31 and T.32, doing a fine job by the sound of it.

 RT> But the original thread 
 RT> was deliberately peverted by the "more mouth than 
 RT> trousers brigade" in here that attempted to re-broadcast 
 RT> disinformation that one particular Class2 may not 
 RT> connect or successfully complete fax operations with 
 RT> another because of differences in the implimentation

Well, some Class 2 faxmodem implementations did not add fill bits to short
scan lines as required by SP 3288 / EIA 592 / T.32, and would cause
problems with fax machines and fax modems that expected to receive fill
bits after short scan lines.

 RT> Perhaps they'd be better employed enquiring why USR has been 
 RT> practicing modem apartheid, over the past 18 months at 
 RT> least, by refusing to negotiate the 3429 symbol rate with Rockwell-oids :)

I don't know where that problem lay. Unlike the USRs, most modems do not
provide information from the INFO sequences used between V.34 modems in the
negotiation process.

It would be great if V.34 modems stored such negotiation information in
internal RAM for retrieval during or after the session.

 RT> Thanx for your reply Arthur.  Erm, am I right in saying that 
 RT> you had something to do with the discussions on V42bis 
 RT> ratification by CCITT in 1990?  

No, I've just been an end-user in Australia.

 RT> If so, could you enlighten Edward Hobson (moderator of UK_HST in UK) by 
 RT> explaining that it's wrong to not impliment V42bis when V42 fall-back 
 RT> action occurs?

 RT> I seem to have lost my communication skills over this!

Much heat has been expended on the subject. My claim is that ITU-T
Recommendation V.42bis specifies implementation over LAPM or V.120 error
correction if one is running all ITU-T protocols. One can of course
implement the BTLZ compression of V.42bis over MNP 4 as per the freely
available Microcom specifications and some modems by Microcom, Netcomm,
Motorola and possibly others allow this in addition to the familiar ITU-T
V.42bis BTLZ over LAPM.

--- msgedsq 2.1