Home

Results 1 - 10 of 500,955 for preferred solution. Search took 3.022 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
[This is not explicitly stated in the spec, but it’s the only solution that makes sense]. So in the all-MPC case or the hybrid MPC/ACP case, the solution is clear. · However, if the decision logic does not select SPC, and no successful MPC’s are established, then each terminal -- upon completing exchange of MONA preference frames – begins the H.245-based ACP negotiation. (...) One way to minimize the risk is to convey the complete H.223 Mux-PDU structure within the MONA frame. Thus a simple solution might change the encapsulation definition to the following: · Until the receipt of at least one incoming Preference Message with ACK set to 10, outgoing Preconfigured Channel media PDUs shall be encapsulated within MONA Preference Messages. · The framing for Preference Messages is defined in clause K.6.1. · The payload for Preference Messages consists of the Preference Message Capability payload defined in clause K.6.2, immediately followed by: · A single, complete H.223 Level-2 Mux PDU as defined in Annex B/H.223, including the header. · · This solves most of the problems, but still does not give the ability to mark Mux-SDU boundaries. (...) The result looks like this: · Until the receipt of at least one incoming Preference Message with ACK set to 10, outgoing Preconfigured Channel media PDUs shall be encapsulated within MONA Preference Messages. · The framing for Preference Messages is defined in clause K.6.1. · The payload for Preference Messages consists of the Preference Message Capability payload defined in clause K.6.2, immediately followed by: · A single, complete H.223 Level-2 Mux PDU as defined in Annex B/H.223, where the ‘MPL’ field in the header is replaced by a single Marker bit ‘M’ and seven Reserved bits ‘X’ as follows: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Octet X X X M MC4 MC3 MC2 MC1 1 P4 P3 P2 P1 X X X X 2 P12 P11 P10 P9 P8 P7 P6 P5 3 · Marker bit (M) shall be set to ‘1’ when the last octet of the Mux PDU coincides with the end of a Mux-SDU, otherwise it shall be set to ‘0’. · Reserved bits (X) shall be set to zero. · Multiplex Code (MCx) and Parity Bits (Px) are as defined in B.3.2.1/H.223, but with the Marker Bit ‘M’ and Reserved Bits ‘X’ replacing the corresponding ‘MPLx’ bits in the computation of the extended Golay code. · · Additional solution (Added in q1f12-R1) There is another possible solution which was discovered since the original submission of q1f12.
Language:English
Score: 1129793.5 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...5-2008/0608_Ottawa/q1f12r1.doc
Data Source: un
Each issue is explained, and possible solutions are presented. We propose that these issues be discussed, and that solutions be put in place not later than the November 2006 SG-16 meeting. 2. (...) [This is not explicitly stated in the spec, but it’s the only solution that makes sense]. So in the all-MPC case or the hybrid MPC/ACP case, the solution is clear. · However, if the decision logic does not select SPC, and no successful MPC’s are established, then each terminal -- upon completing exchange of MONA preference frames – begins the H.245-based ACP negotiation. (...) One way to minimize the risk is to convey the complete H.223 Mux-PDU structure within the MONA frame. Thus a simple solution might change the encapsulation definition to the following: · Until the receipt of at least one incoming Preference Message with ACK set to 10, outgoing Preconfigured Channel media PDUs shall be encapsulated within MONA Preference Messages. · The framing for Preference Messages is defined in clause K.6.1. · The payload for Preference Messages consists of the Preference Message Capability payload defined in clause K.6.2, immediately followed by: · A single, complete H.223 Level-2 Mux PDU as defined in Annex B/H.223, including the header. · · This solves most of the problems, but still does not give the ability to mark Mux-SDU boundaries.
Language:English
Score: 1127238.6 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...005-2008/0608_Ottawa/q1f12.doc
Data Source: un
Contribution to Rapporteur's Meeting for Questions in WP2 ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector Document Q1-D13 Study Group 16 Q.1/16 Rapporteur Meeting Biel-Bienne, Switzerland 19-20 May 2005 Source*: RADVISION Title: Capability Preferences – Suggested behavior Purpose: Proposal ___________________ Introduction This document proposes to add clarifications to H.324 recommendation which would minimize the probability of occurrence of the problem specified in the “Capability Preferences” proposal. Discussion Section(s) The proposed clarifications would require some additions to H.324 recommendation as follows: 6.5.6 Preferred media type The selection of preferred media type as described in H.245 recommendation section C.4.1.3 or C.5.1.3 is optional, however highly recommended due to high odds for a logical channel conflict. (...) The slave which receives the OpenLogicalChannelReject message with the masterSlaveConflict reason should retry to open logical channel with the most preferred media type by the master. Conclusion This document proposes a solution to the media type conflict problem as described in the “Capability Preferences” document.
Language:English
Score: 1072787.6 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a.../2005-2008/0505_Biel/q1d13.doc
Data Source: un
But first you must meet any deductible requirements of your pharmacy plan. How to find a preferred medicine that’s right for you You can visit the website listed on your member ID card. (...) Formulary additions Drug Class Drug name(s) Genitourinary GEMTESA (preferred) Immunologic Agents HAEGARDA (non-preferred) Removing products that may have less convenient dosage forms, more side effects or cost more than other available options or moving those products to a higher tier. (...) Aetna Standard Plan – 947456 (4/22) Changes to your plan’s pharmacy drug list What if I need a prescription drug that requires a medical exception? How to find a preferred medicine that’s right for you Key for table below Formulary additions Formulary exclusions Preferred to non-preferred We’re here to help
Language:English
Score: 1072600.3 - https://www.un.org/insurance/s..._standard_plan_si_02012022.pdf
Data Source: un
The contribution C417 proposed one solution in an attempt to address a situation for the H.324 Annex K operation as it describes. (...) The most likely used codec both being the more advanced and preferred codec, and capable of avoiding the use of transcoding resources, is listed as the most preferred codec. 2.1.1 Possible Solution 1a To complement with Solution 1 to further minimize the potential of using transcoding resources at a gateway, the gateway may perform the following: 1. (...) [End Proposal] 3. Conclusion Our preference to address this issue, if it is considered to be worth addressing by the Q.1 experts, is not to involve normative changes to the Recommendation as described in Solution 1.
Language:English
Score: 1067348.1 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...005-2008/0808_Geneva/q1h06.doc
Data Source: un
Contribution to Rapporteur's Meeting for Questions in WP2 ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector Document Q1-D13r1 Study Group 16 Q.1/16 Rapporteur Meeting Biel-Bienne, Switzerland 19-20 May 2005 Source*: RADVISION Title: Capability Preferences – Suggested behavior Purpose: Proposal ___________________ Introduction This document proposes to add clarifications to H.324 recommendation which would minimize the probability of occurrence of the problem specified in the “Capability Preferences” proposal. (...) The slave which receives the OpenLogicalChannelReject message with the masterSlaveConflict reason should retry to open logical channel with the media type most preferred by the master terminal, unless the master terminal has already opened a logical channel which suits the purpose intended by the slave terminal. Conclusion This document proposes a solution to the media type conflict problem as described in the “Capability Preferences” document.
Language:English
Score: 1044293.75 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...005-2008/0505_Biel/q1d13r1.doc
Data Source: un
After receiving at least one incoming Preference Message, the ACK bits in subsequent outgoing Preference Messages shall be set to 01 to acknowledge the reception of the incoming Preference Message. After receiving at least one incoming Preference Message with the ACK set to 01, the ACK bits in subsequent outgoing Preference Messages shall be set to 10. (...) Call in active state Codec preference of CS endpoint offered as preference in SDP!
Language:English
Score: 1043560.3 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...005-2008/0808_Geneva/q1h10.doc
Data Source: un
Booking a Solutions Workshop Speaking Slot From the Solutions Workshop Speaking Slot table (see the Sponsorship Information document) identify the speaking slot number and corresponding time in order of preference. Preference Speaking Slot Number/Day/Presentation Time 1st choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 2nd choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 3rd choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 4. Confirmation If the requested sponsorship privilege(s) and/or Solutions Workshop speaking slot is still available, ICAO will confirm the booking by return e-mail or facsimile.
Language:English
Score: 1038625.4 - https://www.icao.int/Meetings/...BNS2012-SponsorBookingForm.doc
Data Source: un
Booking a Solutions Workshop Speaking Slot From the Solutions Workshop Speaking Slot table (see the Sponsorship Information document) identify the speaking slot number and corresponding time in order of preference. Preference Speaking Slot Number/Day/Presentation Time 1st choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 2nd choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 3rd choice Speaking slot number: ______ Day: __________________ Time: ________ 4. Confirmation If the requested sponsorship privilege(s) and/or Solutions Workshop speaking slot is still available, ICAO will confirm the booking by return e-mail or facsimile.
Language:English
Score: 1038625.4 - https://www.icao.int/Meetings/...ANC2012-SponsorBookingForm.doc
Data Source: un
First, I think the core of what we are addressing is the issue of preference erosion as it relates to long-standing preference schemes. (...) It has been pointed out that addressing preference erosion does not necessarily limit the solution to being trade-based. Indeed non-trade-based solutions, or combinations of trade-based and non-trade-based solutions, may present the most appropriate means of addressing preference erosion.
Language:English
Score: 1036445.7 - https://www.wto.org/english/tr.../agric_e/ref_paper_prefs_e.doc
Data Source: un