Thread Subject: Re: URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul)
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 1:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I accept the proposed definitions for items 1 and 2, but I have a
question about item 3. The proposed wording is, "Provides transmission
with less than 1% character error under peak non-crisis traffic
conditions." I wasn't on the call where this was discussed, so please
accept my apologies if this issue has already been addressed. Has the
term "peak non-crisis traffic conditions" been defined? If not, I'm
worried that the absence of a definition means that conformance won't be
Here is a VoIP-centric example of the kind of wording I'd like to see:
"Provides transmission with less than 1% character error with packet
loss rates up to 3%." Again, I'm not proposing this as a requirement.
What I am suggesting is that we follow this style for 1194.23(b).
Wording that is less open to interpretation than "peak non-crisis
traffic conditions" would give my engineers a much clearer picture of
what they need to build and my sales teams a much better idea about what
they need to propose.
-- Paul Michaelis
From: Brenda Battat [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:17 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !
Dear TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee Members:
On the call today we discussed definitions that need to be finalized.
Please provide feedback, concerns on the following definitions by COB
June 8th. Thank you
1. Terminal Device
Keep in mind we do not want to involve gateway. During the discussion it
was felt that the current FCC definition would involve gateway as we
know it today
Proposed definition for terminal device
"Terminal device or devices with which the end user directly interacts
and that provide the user interface"
- I accept this definition Yes___
- I offer this definition as an alternative
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY COB JUNE 8TH !"