Telecommunications Industry Association tr41 1/05-08-009 Document Cover Sheet

We have some concerns about some of the proposals to change the draft of TIA-1063 in TR41.1.1/05-08-003, “Modification to some clauses and subclauses of TR41.1.1 draft document”.

• 
  States: “Section 5.1.11.5 describes a disconnect signal that is sent by the ATA. For clarity, it needs to be defined what it is.”
  
• 
  Proposes: “Add – Analog Telephone adapter disconnect signal appears as no DC voltage (no loop current) between tip and ring for a period of at least 600 ms.”
  

5. 
   It is desirable that the analog telephone port transmits a disconnect signal as described in 5.1.11.2 toward the analog telephony equipment within 2 minutes after detection of a permanent or partial-dial time-out at the analog telephone port.
   

2. 
   The analog telephone port shall remove dial tone within 500 ms after receiving the start of the first DTMF digit.
   

Probably what was intended is Section 5.1.14.2, which defines a disconnect signal.

2. 
   If flash signals generated by the analog telephony equipment are not used by the terminal adapter to initiate internal calling features, the terminal adapter shall interpret on-hook intervals of 1500 ms or greater as valid disconnect signals.
   

• 
  Correct the reference in Section 5.1.11.5 from “5.1.11.2” to “5.1.14.2”;
  
• 
  Do not accept the change from 1500 ms to 600 ms.
  

• 
  States: “Section 5.1.14.1 has the ambiguity of on-hook time interval between 150 ms to 300 ms. This period should either be included on the ignore side (item 1) OR itemize the period as reserved for future use.”
  
• 
  Proposes: “In Section 5.1.14.1, add another subheading between 1 and 2 as ‘Reserved on-hook intervals of 150 ms to 300 ms for future use.’”
  

The proposal of -003 is to introduce a 4^th state for the on-hook interval between 150 ms and 300 ms, for future use.

• 
  Isn’t it important to include some margin for implementation? Just as there is between the 1.1- and the 1.5-second gap?
  
• 
  Could there be unintended implications for higher-layer applications from changing the protocol in this way?