Re: Adding fault signalling to cls 49
Pat,
I also prefer option 1.
Ben
pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Group,
>
> I've run into another issue in adding fault signaling to clause 49.
>
> Clearly an ODDD should be encoded as in walker_1_0700.
>
> Also, an O followed by 3 characters that are a mix of data and control
> cannot be encoded. Therefore, it is clear that something like ODCD or OCDD
> is an error and should be replaced by /E/s.
>
> But what should be specified when a 0x5c or 0x9c occurs in a group of
> control characters? Currently, we do not have 7-bit encodings assigned for
> 0x5c and 0x9c. There are 2 alternatives:
>
> 1) It will be considered an error. This is consistant with the behavior for
> S (0xfb) and T (0xfd). We will not need 7-bit encodings for 0x5c and 0x9c.
>
> 2) It is allowed and the received control characters will be
> encoded/decoded. This would require definition of codes 7-bit encodings for
> 0x5c and 0x9c.
>
> My preference is 1 because it is consistant with the way we currently use
> the code. That is what I plan to put into D2.0 unless I get inputs from the
> reflector to the contrary in which case, like Katherine Harris, I'll weigh
> the arguments presented.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
AMCC
2 Commerce Park West
Suite 104
Bedford NH 03110
603-641-9837 - Work
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-626-7455 - Fax
603-798-4115 - Home Office
bbrown@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------