November 1999 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Comments: follow-- Barry Aronson wrote: > All, > > I agree with Tom. We seem to be headed for designing an entire mobile > network within H.323 -- definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog. If > this was the desire, extending existing mobile networks (AMPS, GSM, etc.) to > include H.323 terminals would be simpler. This is called the WAP solution, already done but it is still two separate networks (MSC-CS and PDN) routed/ split out by a DSU from the BSC. And it does not address the fixed Internet PC or any PSTN/ISDN interworking. > That is, of course, unless you > wanted the terminals to be independent of the physical network from the > network layer on up. H.323 could do this if there was an underlying packet > based network -- probably IP. Using IP as a common network layer for both > wireless and wired terminals is of course all the rage these days. Given > that universal wireless terminals are been worked as part of IMT-2000 (and > 3GPP, 3GPP-2, etc.), wouldn't it make sense to define the Annex H issues > being debated in the appropriate network groups? We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking groups. > > > Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought in Santiago the purpose of Annex H and > I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal and/or > user, and also allow for service mobility. I feel a mobile IP debate is in the starts here but, We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking group. What the IETF needs to address is how mobile IP interworks with Mobility whether is H.323, GSM, PLNM or otherwise.. > I don't think any of what is > being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this. What being discussed here is, we are looking at the H.323 mobility from the appilation layer. > > > Barry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > [mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > I think a basic point in this discussion is that mobility is "bigger than" > H.323 and already has well-established architectural underpinnings. It's > all very well to talk about an H.323 solution which we could then adapt, but > we would more likely end up with an H.323-only solution as a result. The > concern then would be whether vendors saw sufficient opportunity in building > to this market, compared with the general market for mobility products. -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

2 1

LogicalChannelRate Messages
by Aseem Agarwal 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Hi A set of new signalling messages LogicalChannelRate have been introduced in H.245 version-5. There is no corresponding section in Annex C for any procedures/state machine/ timers, etc. associated with these messages. Kindly let me know if the associated procedures are a part of some appendix/ implementor's guide. thanks aseem(a)trillium.com

2 1

Canonical names
by Paul Long 09 Nov '99

09 Nov '99

I have found conflicting descriptions of canonical names. A.6.4.1/H.225.0v3 says, "The CNAME item should have the format 'user@host'...," and then goes on to talk about alternative forms. However, the cname field in RTPSession, which is referenced by the audio and video components of IRR's perCallInfo, is of type, PrintableString. But guess what? The "@" character is not valid for PrintableString! The problem occurs when an EP receives a properly formed canonical name (via an RTCP sender report) containing "@", e.g., "plong@wkstation3", and is subsequently required to disclose this name in an IRR. It currently has to modify the name before encoding it by, for example, replacing the "@" character with "-", as in "plong-wkstation3" or removing the user-name portion of the name, leaving just the host name, as in "wkstation3", but then it is not accurately reporting the canonical name. Anyone know how to fix this in H.225.0? Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

FYI only
by Edgar Martinez [1] 08 Nov '99

08 Nov '99

Dear All, Just to provided more information and some food for thought I have put the "3GPP Definitions" and "3GPP Terminology for Call Control". in http://people.itu.int/~emartine/temp/ Best Regards, -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/

2 1

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 08 Nov '99

08 Nov '99

Hi, Ed: Kindly see my reply. Best regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:26 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > Hi Radhika, > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > Hi, Ed and All: > > > > I understand your point. As I explained that contributions with solution > > have been provided based on "Home and Visited" solving the mobility > > problems. > > > > All members are welcomed to provide solutions based on their concepts. > If > > the alternate solutions are provided based on contributions we will > > definitely be able to see how solutions are provided based on alternate > > ideas or terminologies. Then, we will have wonderful opportunities to > > compare each idea or terminology without any confusion or ambiguity. > > Definitely we are waiting to make compromises if we collectively see > that it > > makes sense to do so when we see that there are better solutions > available > > based on alternative approaches. > > > > We are only in definition phase. These are the place holders. If the > > architectural solution that we will be agreeing with does not support > those > > definitions or terminologies we will definitely change these. There > should > > not be any doubt about this. I do not see why we should hold-off our > > discussions for these two terms. > > > As an Editor, I suggest that you can put a > > note that "some members have some objection to agree on these two terms, > but > > we will revisit these terms when we finalize our architectural > solution." > > > > Noted > > > > > We will have an architectural discussion in the upcoming conference > call. We > > have invited contributions with proposed solutions to have all ideas > clear > > so that we can move forward. > > > > > > > Finally, Ed - what we are looking for is the solution of the problem > (not > > adding or deleting some terminologies here and there). > > We have plenty to solutions, but weak definitions. > [Roy, Radhika R] If it is so, the logical step is to examine all solutions to understand them better and let us come back to make the definitions stronger once we agree on the solution. [Roy, Radhika R] The other alternative is to go on defining terms that may consist of both "strong" and "weak" definitions and let us move on to the solution area. Then we come back what we do about the "strong" and "weak" definitions because our goal is the solution. [Roy, Radhika R] The bottom line is: Let us move on to find the solution. > Thanks > > > > > > > Hope this email will clarify your concern. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:31 PM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > > > > > To the Mobile Ad-hoc Colleges: > > > > > > What we have here is an opportunity to build a good > > > working relationship. But, it seems at this time, > > > we are in feeling out stage. Solutions and proposals > > > are being worked within companies and in > > > difference standards, which want to find a > > > place in the work we are doing but, I think > > > compromise is in order. > > > > > > The only thing I was suggesting in by email, > > > was that the word "Home and Visited" bother soon > > > of our colleges. So my suggestion was to persevere > > > the functions and compromise on the naming of the functions. > > > > > > By definition, whatever we put in the H.323 mobility > > > document will have to be in the > > > context of the H.323 framework baseline. > > > > > > Lets keep an open mind as we move forward, > > > Y peace. We all may learn something and discover > > > new things. If possible lets start looking on compromise > > > solutions that satisfies all involved. Once we limit our > > > scope it limits us from progressing towards the future. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Ed > > > > > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Ed and All: > > > > > > > > I do not know whether you have seen my reply to Jaakko. I am > enclosing > > > it > > > > again. Please respond to my reply to provided Jaakko to prove your > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > I completely disagree with Ed. Please also see Marc Roelands's > comments > > > on > > > > LA. > > > > > > > > AT&T contribution has shown how H.323 mobility problem can be solved > > > using > > > > home/foreign GK (zone). > > > > > > > > I like to see the complete H.323 mobility problem that has been > solved > > > using > > > > the alternative approach as proposed by Nokia. I have NOT seen > Nokia's > > > > solution yet. Unless a complete solution is provided like AT&T's, I > am > > > NOT > > > > convinced how mobility problem can be solved in a better way. > > > > > > > > I also see that there is a need for HLF/VLF. No one against the > HLF/VLF > > > > function. AT&T proposal also has shown how HLF/VLF function is taken > > > > care-of. > > > > > > > > What I disagree with is this: A protocol should NOT be > implementation > > > > specific. For example, we do have a luxury to build one protocol for > > > > distributive GK (HLF/VLF) function, one protocol for centralized GK > > > > (HLF/VLF) function or one protocol for hybrid GK (HLF/HLF) function. > It > > > is > > > > against the fundamental concept of H.323. For example, the same > argument > > > can > > > > also be applied for the directory function. Similar may the case for > > > other > > > > functions as well. It is a complete break down of H.323 protocol and > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > > So, HLF/VLF is another function in H.323. HLF/VLF is NOT a "Holy > Grail" > > > for > > > > which we have to create a complete "DISCONTINUITY" in existing H.323 > > > > protocol and architecture. I like see to Nokia's alternate solution > to > > > > disprove this fear. > > > > > > > > Nokia has to bring a complete contribution providing solution like > > > AT&T's to > > > > prove their case. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with a concept that > has > > > not > > > > proved with a solution. > > > > > > > > The problem can be solved as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Let Nokia provide a complete proposal solving the H.323 mobility > > > problem > > > > using heir alternative approach. What Nokia has provided is a high > level > > > > concept. They have NOT solved the problem yet. Let us see what the > > > complete > > > > solution is. If a solution is provided, we can then compare Nokia's > > > solution > > > > with that of AT&T's solution. Otherwise, their proposal is still > > > > HYPOTHETICAL. It is a concept, NOT a solution. > > > > > > > > 2. How can we agree on a concept without seeing its solution that > has > > > the > > > > potential to break down the fundamental architecture of existing > H.323 > > > > standard? > > > > > > > > 3. Let us solve H.323 mobility problem within the framework of > H.323. > > > > > > > > 4. Let us move on with contributions for the part that we can agree > on. > > > If > > > > Nokia brings a complete solution, we will definitely re-consider > their > > > case. > > > > > > > > 5. I agree with you that we also need to work for interworking > between > > > H.323 > > > > (IP) mobility and cellular-PSTN/ISDN network. > > > > > > > > Finally, Ed - you have made a statement, but it has to be proved > > > providing a > > > > solution. An alternative concept is there, but we have not seen its > > > solution > > > > yet. What is the problem to bring the alternate solution? Why do we > need > > > to > > > > wait for a concept that has NOT been substantiated with a solution > yet? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Radhika > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:47 AM > > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: Summary of discussion > > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > > I agreed with most of Jaakko comments and also > > > > > make vaild points, and will like to > > > > > add the following. > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the (Home) in Home Zone should be taken out. > > > > > What we are talking about is the User's Point of Attached in > > > > > any given Zone. The HLF is ready and Data base > > > > > which has the User's profile and the current user's location. > > > > > We can get a new name to HLF and call it the Location Profile > > > > > Register (LPR) or Location Profile Function (LPF). > > > > > > > > > > I also believe that the (Visited) in Visited Zone sould also > > > > > be taken out because again we are talking about > > > > > the Users current Point of Attachment in any given Zone. > > > > > The VLF has the means to update the > > > > > Location Profile Register (LPR) from > > > > > any given Zone. We can get a new name to VLF > > > > > call it the Location Update Register (LUR) or > > > > > Location Update Function (LUF). > > > > > > > > > > Now we can also support concepts of Zone ID's > > > > > such as Current Zone ID and Previous Zone ID. > > > > > > > > > > Finally, > > > > > > > > > > And I strongly agree with looking at the interworking > > > > > in parallel with H.323 mobility. The time we spent > > > > > now looking at interworking will be compensated in the > > > > > long run. I sure does working on ISUP, IN and Qsig, inetrworking > > > > > with H.323 would agree and we should learn from their experience. > > > > > And not leave it for a last minute add-on. > > > > > > > > > > Lets take the contribution as they come, if one wants to put in > > > > > interworking fine. If one wants to put in contributions only H.323 > > > > > mobility also fine. Both are in order and within our scope. > > > > > > > > > > The general strategy should focus on ensuring that the H.323 > > > > > Mobility and interworking options are enabled, rather than > spending > > > > > too much effort blocking alternative options (Our limited > resources > > > > > frankly don't allow this luxury). But there really is no > substitute > > > for > > > > > doing the work - preparing input papers and presenting them > > > > > to move things forward. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Hi, Jaakko: > > > > > > > > Pl. see my reply provided below. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Radhika > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM > > > [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:13 AM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: meeting > > > > > > > > Once again, hi, Radhika, Ed + all > > > > > > > > See my comments below... > > > > > > > > Hi, Jaakko, Ed, and All: > > > > > > > > I hope that Jaakko will get this mail while > he > > > is in > > > > his > > > > office (Thanks > > > > Jaakko - you have reminded us the time > > > difference)! > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] You caught me just in time. > > > > > > > > Please note the following: > > > > > > > > 1. Zone and domain are well defined in > H.323. > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes, they are defined. > > > > > > > > 2. We have to work for mobility solution in > a > > > way > > > > that fits > > > > very well that > > > > already exists in H.323. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Agreed. > > > > > > > > 3. We can invent many things if we need to > solve > > > > mobility > > > > problems only when > > > > we think that those functions are NOT > covered in > > > > existing > > > > H.323 standard. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes. > > > > > > > > 4. If mobility problems can be solved using > the > > > > concept of > > > > "zones" and > > > > "domains," I would assume that it would be a > big > > > > mile stone > > > > so far the > > > > continuity of H.323 is concerned. That is, > as Ed > > > > pointed > > > > out, H.323 mobility > > > > problem is NOT a rocket science. We have to > > > remember > > > > that we > > > > are working in > > > > the framework of already existing H.323 > standard > > > > architecture. We have to > > > > relate our solution in the context of > existing > > > H.323 > > > > standard. In other > > > > words, we CANNOT change the fundamental > concept > > > of > > > > existing > > > > H.323 standards > > > > just because we are addressing mobility. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes, of course. I'm not arguing > > > against > > > > that. I > > > > guess you are referring to the Location Area discussion > here. > > > The LA > > > > concept > > > > is really merely a scaling issue, you could of course handle > > > paging > > > > (I'm > > > > assuming that we will need the paging procedure) based on > zones, > > > > i.e. page > > > > every NPoA in a zone when a call arrives, but this might be > > > quite > > > > limiting > > > > in some cases (the zone may be needlessly big or very > small). I > > > do > > > > not think > > > > that we need to change any fundamental concepts of H.323, if > we > > > > introduce > > > > the LA concept. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] May be we can include LA when we see that > we > > > need > > > > to optimize a zone further. We may revisit this in the second step. > > > > > > > > 5. I do not understand what benefits we are > > > gaining > > > > adding > > > > more > > > > "terminologies" like "AREA {home, foreign, > etc}" > > > > while the > > > > "zone" and > > > > "domain" are already well defined in H.323. > My > > > > personal view > > > > is that we > > > > should FIRST try to solve H.323 mobility > > > problems > > > > within the > > > > context of > > > > "zone" and "domain" as far as practicable. I > > > would > > > > argue > > > > that zone and > > > > domain are good enough to serve this purpose > for > > > > now. (Pl. > > > > also see AT&T's > > > > and Motorola's contributions.) > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] As I already said, I did not > intent to > > > > define the > > > > terms: home area and visited area. I was just trying to > > > illustrate > > > > the point > > > > I was making about not having the Home/visited zone terms > > > defined > > > > yet. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] It is good point. Let us define these. > AT&T > > > > contributions have the detail definition for each term. > > > > > > > > 6. With respect to your comments that it > appears > > > > that every > > > > GK will have HLF > > > > and VLF function, I would say that every GK > will > > > > have the > > > > access to the HLF > > > > and VLF function. This capability for each > GK > > > has to > > > > be > > > > provided because of > > > > the fact that H.323 architecture is > GK-centric. > > > We > > > > do not > > > > have any choice > > > > because we are restricted by the H.323 > > > architecture. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I did not argue against this. The > > > point is > > > > that if > > > > we identify a concept called the Home Zone, this already > implies > > > > that each > > > > User has only one zone, in which he/she/it is not a > "visiting > > > user". > > > > I think > > > > this would be really restricting. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I mentioned that H.323 is the > GK-centric. A > > > > user may change his/her network point of point attachment, but it is > > > still > > > > the same (Home) GK. So, a given (home) GK, there has to be another > level > > > of > > > > granularity to address mobility in terms of network point of > attachment. > > > > Please see AT&T contribution how home and foreign network concept > have > > > > solved the problem. Similar is the case with Motorola's > contribution. > > > The > > > > bottom line is that home/foreign GK concept does NOT imply any > > > restriction > > > > to solve H.323 mobility. > > > > > > > > 6.1 With respect to your question whether > > > HLF/VLF > > > > can be > > > > distributive or > > > > centralized, having said (in item 5) that > every > > > GK > > > > should > > > > have access to HLF > > > > and VLF function, it is up to implementation > > > whether > > > > HLF and > > > > VLF function > > > > can be centralized or distributive. Please > see > > > AT&T > > > > contributions submitted > > > > in Red Bank how we can implement these > functions > > > in > > > > both > > > > distributive and > > > > centralized environment. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] This is actually quite much the > point > > > I > > > > was > > > > making. By defining the Home Zone we would in my mind > actually > > > be > > > > pointing > > > > to the centralized model. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] By definition, there can as many GKs as > one > > > wish > > > > have in an H.323 system. So, by definition, the GK-centric H.323 > > > > architecture is distributive. By defining home/foreign GK, H.323 > > > mobility > > > > also becomes distributive up to the point that a basic H.323 system > > > allows > > > > us. So, we do not see any limitations. > > > > > > > > 6.2 In an analogy of this HLF/VLF function, > I > > > can > > > > bring > > > > another function - > > > > Directory services. For example, H.323 > assumes > > > that > > > > all the > > > > address (e.g., > > > > alias, transport, network) are kept by each > GK. > > > > H.323 does > > > > not answer how > > > > the address information is maintained by > each > > > GK. > > > > People are > > > > using LDAP > > > > directory server. The question is: whether > that > > > > directory > > > > service is > > > > distributive or centralized? I guess that it > can > > > be > > > > done in > > > > both ways > > > > depending on implementation. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] My point exactly. I would like > that > > > all > > > > GKs inside > > > > the same Administrative Domain would be able to access the > same > > > > HLF/VLF > > > > functionality. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I pointed out, this an implementation > > > issue. I > > > > would argue that we should allow both options and let an implementor > > > choose > > > > as it is necessary. Please also see AT&T contributions how both > options > > > can > > > > be addressed. > > > > > > > > 6.3 In AT&T contribution, it is shown that > it > > > better > > > > to make > > > > VLF > > > > distributive (per GK) although HLF function > can > > > be > > > > made both > > > > distributive > > > > and centralized. Again, this is a matter of > > > > implementation. > > > > As mentioned in > > > > AT&T contribution, we also need to define a > kind > > > of > > > > backend > > > > protocol for VLF > > > > and HLF (something like similar to Siemens, > > > Nokia > > > > and > > > > Intel's contribution - > > > > TD-39: Security Services for Backend > Services > > > and > > > > Mobility > > > > in H.323). > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I would assume that you can > distribute > > > the > > > > HLF/VLF > > > > functionalities inside the Administrative Domain as you > like, > > > but > > > > distributing them between the Domains would be difficult. > > > Actually I > > > > think > > > > that the concept of Administrative Domain was introduced in > > > H.323 > > > > for this > > > > kind of reasons. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Again, H.323 system is GK-centric in a > given > > > > domain. For inter-domain, it is BE-centric. In a given domain, H.323 > > > > architecture has to be GK-centric. Once we solve intra-zone and > > > inter-zone > > > > (intra-domain) mobility, we can extend our experience for > inter-domain > > > > problem as well. Please also see AT&T contribution how these > problems > > > have > > > > been addressed. My replies to 6.1 and 6.2 are also good for this > case. > > > > > > > > 7. Again, I, personally, do not rule our to > > > > re-examine the > > > > benfit of "AREA" > > > > (e.g. location area [LA]) vs. "ZONE/DOMAIN" > > > concept. > > > > May be > > > > it is in the > > > > second step. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I am just a bit afraid that if we > > > leave > > > > this kind > > > > of a major mobility related concept out of the first phase > > > thinking > > > > process, > > > > we will find it much more difficult to include the concept > in > > > the > > > > second > > > > phase (where I think we will need it). Furthermore, I'm not > > > > convinced that > > > > the LA concept would not be useful in the pure H.323 > approach > > > > either. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] I think that it can be place holder for > now. I > > > > would request to bring more detail contributions proposing solutions > > > like > > > > AT&T and Motorola to prove the case better. Then, we can compare > both > > > > solutions. In AT&T contribution, I feel that the LA can be > accommodated > > > to > > > > optimize the zone further. So, I do not see that it is a problem to > > > > accommodate the LA concept if needed. I personally prefer that we > can > > > better > > > > address this in the second phase once we solve the problem for the > basic > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > > Hope that this email will clarify the things > > > better. > > > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I think the main thing is that we > got > > > the > > > > discussion going on again. I'm kind of tired already, and I > hope > > > > that I > > > > didn't mess things up too much in this mail. > > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Definitely, I also like that discussions > must > > > go > > > > on. We must be convinced that we have the best solution because it > has > > > the > > > > severe implications for all on-going mobility standard works > throughout > > > the > > > > world once we standardize H.323 mobility in SG16. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Radhika > > > > > > > > Same to you, > > > > Jaakko > > > > > -- > > > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > > > > > -- > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > -- > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Edgar Martinez [1] 08 Nov '99

08 Nov '99

Hi Radhika, "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Ed and All: > > I understand your point. As I explained that contributions with solution > have been provided based on "Home and Visited" solving the mobility > problems. > > All members are welcomed to provide solutions based on their concepts. If > the alternate solutions are provided based on contributions we will > definitely be able to see how solutions are provided based on alternate > ideas or terminologies. Then, we will have wonderful opportunities to > compare each idea or terminology without any confusion or ambiguity. > Definitely we are waiting to make compromises if we collectively see that it > makes sense to do so when we see that there are better solutions available > based on alternative approaches. > > We are only in definition phase. These are the place holders. If the > architectural solution that we will be agreeing with does not support those > definitions or terminologies we will definitely change these. There should > not be any doubt about this. I do not see why we should hold-off our > discussions for these two terms. > As an Editor, I suggest that you can put a > note that "some members have some objection to agree on these two terms, but > we will revisit these terms when we finalize our architectural solution." > Noted > > We will have an architectural discussion in the upcoming conference call. We > have invited contributions with proposed solutions to have all ideas clear > so that we can move forward. > > > Finally, Ed - what we are looking for is the solution of the problem (not > adding or deleting some terminologies here and there). We have plenty to solutions, but weak definitions. Thanks > > > Hope this email will clarify your concern. > > Best regards, > Radhika > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:31 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > > > To the Mobile Ad-hoc Colleges: > > > > What we have here is an opportunity to build a good > > working relationship. But, it seems at this time, > > we are in feeling out stage. Solutions and proposals > > are being worked within companies and in > > difference standards, which want to find a > > place in the work we are doing but, I think > > compromise is in order. > > > > The only thing I was suggesting in by email, > > was that the word "Home and Visited" bother soon > > of our colleges. So my suggestion was to persevere > > the functions and compromise on the naming of the functions. > > > > By definition, whatever we put in the H.323 mobility > > document will have to be in the > > context of the H.323 framework baseline. > > > > Lets keep an open mind as we move forward, > > Y peace. We all may learn something and discover > > new things. If possible lets start looking on compromise > > solutions that satisfies all involved. Once we limit our > > scope it limits us from progressing towards the future. > > > > Best Regards, > > Ed > > > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > > > Hi, Ed and All: > > > > > > I do not know whether you have seen my reply to Jaakko. I am enclosing > > it > > > again. Please respond to my reply to provided Jaakko to prove your > > > statement. > > > > > > I completely disagree with Ed. Please also see Marc Roelands's comments > > on > > > LA. > > > > > > AT&T contribution has shown how H.323 mobility problem can be solved > > using > > > home/foreign GK (zone). > > > > > > I like to see the complete H.323 mobility problem that has been solved > > using > > > the alternative approach as proposed by Nokia. I have NOT seen Nokia's > > > solution yet. Unless a complete solution is provided like AT&T's, I am > > NOT > > > convinced how mobility problem can be solved in a better way. > > > > > > I also see that there is a need for HLF/VLF. No one against the HLF/VLF > > > function. AT&T proposal also has shown how HLF/VLF function is taken > > > care-of. > > > > > > What I disagree with is this: A protocol should NOT be implementation > > > specific. For example, we do have a luxury to build one protocol for > > > distributive GK (HLF/VLF) function, one protocol for centralized GK > > > (HLF/VLF) function or one protocol for hybrid GK (HLF/HLF) function. It > > is > > > against the fundamental concept of H.323. For example, the same argument > > can > > > also be applied for the directory function. Similar may the case for > > other > > > functions as well. It is a complete break down of H.323 protocol and > > > architecture. > > > > > > So, HLF/VLF is another function in H.323. HLF/VLF is NOT a "Holy Grail" > > for > > > which we have to create a complete "DISCONTINUITY" in existing H.323 > > > protocol and architecture. I like see to Nokia's alternate solution to > > > disprove this fear. > > > > > > Nokia has to bring a complete contribution providing solution like > > AT&T's to > > > prove their case. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with a concept that has > > not > > > proved with a solution. > > > > > > The problem can be solved as follows: > > > > > > 1. Let Nokia provide a complete proposal solving the H.323 mobility > > problem > > > using heir alternative approach. What Nokia has provided is a high level > > > concept. They have NOT solved the problem yet. Let us see what the > > complete > > > solution is. If a solution is provided, we can then compare Nokia's > > solution > > > with that of AT&T's solution. Otherwise, their proposal is still > > > HYPOTHETICAL. It is a concept, NOT a solution. > > > > > > 2. How can we agree on a concept without seeing its solution that has > > the > > > potential to break down the fundamental architecture of existing H.323 > > > standard? > > > > > > 3. Let us solve H.323 mobility problem within the framework of H.323. > > > > > > 4. Let us move on with contributions for the part that we can agree on. > > If > > > Nokia brings a complete solution, we will definitely re-consider their > > case. > > > > > > 5. I agree with you that we also need to work for interworking between > > H.323 > > > (IP) mobility and cellular-PSTN/ISDN network. > > > > > > Finally, Ed - you have made a statement, but it has to be proved > > providing a > > > solution. An alternative concept is there, but we have not seen its > > solution > > > yet. What is the problem to bring the alternate solution? Why do we need > > to > > > wait for a concept that has NOT been substantiated with a solution yet? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:47 AM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: Summary of discussion > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > I agreed with most of Jaakko comments and also > > > > make vaild points, and will like to > > > > add the following. > > > > > > > > I believe that the (Home) in Home Zone should be taken out. > > > > What we are talking about is the User's Point of Attached in > > > > any given Zone. The HLF is ready and Data base > > > > which has the User's profile and the current user's location. > > > > We can get a new name to HLF and call it the Location Profile > > > > Register (LPR) or Location Profile Function (LPF). > > > > > > > > I also believe that the (Visited) in Visited Zone sould also > > > > be taken out because again we are talking about > > > > the Users current Point of Attachment in any given Zone. > > > > The VLF has the means to update the > > > > Location Profile Register (LPR) from > > > > any given Zone. We can get a new name to VLF > > > > call it the Location Update Register (LUR) or > > > > Location Update Function (LUF). > > > > > > > > Now we can also support concepts of Zone ID's > > > > such as Current Zone ID and Previous Zone ID. > > > > > > > > Finally, > > > > > > > > And I strongly agree with looking at the interworking > > > > in parallel with H.323 mobility. The time we spent > > > > now looking at interworking will be compensated in the > > > > long run. I sure does working on ISUP, IN and Qsig, inetrworking > > > > with H.323 would agree and we should learn from their experience. > > > > And not leave it for a last minute add-on. > > > > > > > > Lets take the contribution as they come, if one wants to put in > > > > interworking fine. If one wants to put in contributions only H.323 > > > > mobility also fine. Both are in order and within our scope. > > > > > > > > The general strategy should focus on ensuring that the H.323 > > > > Mobility and interworking options are enabled, rather than spending > > > > too much effort blocking alternative options (Our limited resources > > > > frankly don't allow this luxury). But there really is no substitute > > for > > > > doing the work - preparing input papers and presenting them > > > > to move things forward. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Hi, Jaakko: > > > > > > Pl. see my reply provided below. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM > > [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:13 AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: meeting > > > > > > Once again, hi, Radhika, Ed + all > > > > > > See my comments below... > > > > > > Hi, Jaakko, Ed, and All: > > > > > > I hope that Jaakko will get this mail while he > > is in > > > his > > > office (Thanks > > > Jaakko - you have reminded us the time > > difference)! > > > > > > [Jaakko:] You caught me just in time. > > > > > > Please note the following: > > > > > > 1. Zone and domain are well defined in H.323. > > > [Jaakko:] Yes, they are defined. > > > > > > 2. We have to work for mobility solution in a > > way > > > that fits > > > very well that > > > already exists in H.323. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Agreed. > > > > > > 3. We can invent many things if we need to solve > > > mobility > > > problems only when > > > we think that those functions are NOT covered in > > > existing > > > H.323 standard. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes. > > > > > > 4. If mobility problems can be solved using the > > > concept of > > > "zones" and > > > "domains," I would assume that it would be a big > > > mile stone > > > so far the > > > continuity of H.323 is concerned. That is, as Ed > > > pointed > > > out, H.323 mobility > > > problem is NOT a rocket science. We have to > > remember > > > that we > > > are working in > > > the framework of already existing H.323 standard > > > architecture. We have to > > > relate our solution in the context of existing > > H.323 > > > standard. In other > > > words, we CANNOT change the fundamental concept > > of > > > existing > > > H.323 standards > > > just because we are addressing mobility. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes, of course. I'm not arguing > > against > > > that. I > > > guess you are referring to the Location Area discussion here. > > The LA > > > concept > > > is really merely a scaling issue, you could of course handle > > paging > > > (I'm > > > assuming that we will need the paging procedure) based on zones, > > > i.e. page > > > every NPoA in a zone when a call arrives, but this might be > > quite > > > limiting > > > in some cases (the zone may be needlessly big or very small). I > > do > > > not think > > > that we need to change any fundamental concepts of H.323, if we > > > introduce > > > the LA concept. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] May be we can include LA when we see that we > > need > > > to optimize a zone further. We may revisit this in the second step. > > > > > > 5. I do not understand what benefits we are > > gaining > > > adding > > > more > > > "terminologies" like "AREA {home, foreign, etc}" > > > while the > > > "zone" and > > > "domain" are already well defined in H.323. My > > > personal view > > > is that we > > > should FIRST try to solve H.323 mobility > > problems > > > within the > > > context of > > > "zone" and "domain" as far as practicable. I > > would > > > argue > > > that zone and > > > domain are good enough to serve this purpose for > > > now. (Pl. > > > also see AT&T's > > > and Motorola's contributions.) > > > > > > [Jaakko:] As I already said, I did not intent to > > > define the > > > terms: home area and visited area. I was just trying to > > illustrate > > > the point > > > I was making about not having the Home/visited zone terms > > defined > > > yet. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] It is good point. Let us define these. AT&T > > > contributions have the detail definition for each term. > > > > > > 6. With respect to your comments that it appears > > > that every > > > GK will have HLF > > > and VLF function, I would say that every GK will > > > have the > > > access to the HLF > > > and VLF function. This capability for each GK > > has to > > > be > > > provided because of > > > the fact that H.323 architecture is GK-centric. > > We > > > do not > > > have any choice > > > because we are restricted by the H.323 > > architecture. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I did not argue against this. The > > point is > > > that if > > > we identify a concept called the Home Zone, this already implies > > > that each > > > User has only one zone, in which he/she/it is not a "visiting > > user". > > > I think > > > this would be really restricting. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I mentioned that H.323 is the GK-centric. A > > > user may change his/her network point of point attachment, but it is > > still > > > the same (Home) GK. So, a given (home) GK, there has to be another level > > of > > > granularity to address mobility in terms of network point of attachment. > > > Please see AT&T contribution how home and foreign network concept have > > > solved the problem. Similar is the case with Motorola's contribution. > > The > > > bottom line is that home/foreign GK concept does NOT imply any > > restriction > > > to solve H.323 mobility. > > > > > > 6.1 With respect to your question whether > > HLF/VLF > > > can be > > > distributive or > > > centralized, having said (in item 5) that every > > GK > > > should > > > have access to HLF > > > and VLF function, it is up to implementation > > whether > > > HLF and > > > VLF function > > > can be centralized or distributive. Please see > > AT&T > > > contributions submitted > > > in Red Bank how we can implement these functions > > in > > > both > > > distributive and > > > centralized environment. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] This is actually quite much the point > > I > > > was > > > making. By defining the Home Zone we would in my mind actually > > be > > > pointing > > > to the centralized model. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] By definition, there can as many GKs as one > > wish > > > have in an H.323 system. So, by definition, the GK-centric H.323 > > > architecture is distributive. By defining home/foreign GK, H.323 > > mobility > > > also becomes distributive up to the point that a basic H.323 system > > allows > > > us. So, we do not see any limitations. > > > > > > 6.2 In an analogy of this HLF/VLF function, I > > can > > > bring > > > another function - > > > Directory services. For example, H.323 assumes > > that > > > all the > > > address (e.g., > > > alias, transport, network) are kept by each GK. > > > H.323 does > > > not answer how > > > the address information is maintained by each > > GK. > > > People are > > > using LDAP > > > directory server. The question is: whether that > > > directory > > > service is > > > distributive or centralized? I guess that it can > > be > > > done in > > > both ways > > > depending on implementation. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] My point exactly. I would like that > > all > > > GKs inside > > > the same Administrative Domain would be able to access the same > > > HLF/VLF > > > functionality. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I pointed out, this an implementation > > issue. I > > > would argue that we should allow both options and let an implementor > > choose > > > as it is necessary. Please also see AT&T contributions how both options > > can > > > be addressed. > > > > > > 6.3 In AT&T contribution, it is shown that it > > better > > > to make > > > VLF > > > distributive (per GK) although HLF function can > > be > > > made both > > > distributive > > > and centralized. Again, this is a matter of > > > implementation. > > > As mentioned in > > > AT&T contribution, we also need to define a kind > > of > > > backend > > > protocol for VLF > > > and HLF (something like similar to Siemens, > > Nokia > > > and > > > Intel's contribution - > > > TD-39: Security Services for Backend Services > > and > > > Mobility > > > in H.323). > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I would assume that you can distribute > > the > > > HLF/VLF > > > functionalities inside the Administrative Domain as you like, > > but > > > distributing them between the Domains would be difficult. > > Actually I > > > think > > > that the concept of Administrative Domain was introduced in > > H.323 > > > for this > > > kind of reasons. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Again, H.323 system is GK-centric in a given > > > domain. For inter-domain, it is BE-centric. In a given domain, H.323 > > > architecture has to be GK-centric. Once we solve intra-zone and > > inter-zone > > > (intra-domain) mobility, we can extend our experience for inter-domain > > > problem as well. Please also see AT&T contribution how these problems > > have > > > been addressed. My replies to 6.1 and 6.2 are also good for this case. > > > > > > 7. Again, I, personally, do not rule our to > > > re-examine the > > > benfit of "AREA" > > > (e.g. location area [LA]) vs. "ZONE/DOMAIN" > > concept. > > > May be > > > it is in the > > > second step. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I am just a bit afraid that if we > > leave > > > this kind > > > of a major mobility related concept out of the first phase > > thinking > > > process, > > > we will find it much more difficult to include the concept in > > the > > > second > > > phase (where I think we will need it). Furthermore, I'm not > > > convinced that > > > the LA concept would not be useful in the pure H.323 approach > > > either. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] I think that it can be place holder for now. I > > > would request to bring more detail contributions proposing solutions > > like > > > AT&T and Motorola to prove the case better. Then, we can compare both > > > solutions. In AT&T contribution, I feel that the LA can be accommodated > > to > > > optimize the zone further. So, I do not see that it is a problem to > > > accommodate the LA concept if needed. I personally prefer that we can > > better > > > address this in the second phase once we solve the problem for the basic > > > architecture. > > > > > > Hope that this email will clarify the things > > better. > > > > > > [Jaakko:] I think the main thing is that we got > > the > > > discussion going on again. I'm kind of tired already, and I hope > > > that I > > > didn't mess things up too much in this mail. > > > [Roy, Radhika R] Definitely, I also like that discussions must > > go > > > on. We must be convinced that we have the best solution because it has > > the > > > severe implications for all on-going mobility standard works throughout > > the > > > world once we standardize H.323 mobility in SG16. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika > > > > > > Same to you, > > > Jaakko > > > > -- > > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 08 Nov '99

08 Nov '99

Hi, Ed and All: I understand your point. As I explained that contributions with solution have been provided based on "Home and Visited" solving the mobility problems. All members are welcomed to provide solutions based on their concepts. If the alternate solutions are provided based on contributions we will definitely be able to see how solutions are provided based on alternate ideas or terminologies. Then, we will have wonderful opportunities to compare each idea or terminology without any confusion or ambiguity. Definitely we are waiting to make compromises if we collectively see that it makes sense to do so when we see that there are better solutions available based on alternative approaches. We are only in definition phase. These are the place holders. If the architectural solution that we will be agreeing with does not support those definitions or terminologies we will definitely change these. There should not be any doubt about this. I do not see why we should hold-off our discussions for these two terms. As an Editor, I suggest that you can put a note that "some members have some objection to agree on these two terms, but we will revisit these terms when we finalize our architectural solution." We will have an architectural discussion in the upcoming conference call. We have invited contributions with proposed solutions to have all ideas clear so that we can move forward. Finally, Ed - what we are looking for is the solution of the problem (not adding or deleting some terminologies here and there). Hope this email will clarify your concern. Best regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:31 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion > > To the Mobile Ad-hoc Colleges: > > What we have here is an opportunity to build a good > working relationship. But, it seems at this time, > we are in feeling out stage. Solutions and proposals > are being worked within companies and in > difference standards, which want to find a > place in the work we are doing but, I think > compromise is in order. > > The only thing I was suggesting in by email, > was that the word "Home and Visited" bother soon > of our colleges. So my suggestion was to persevere > the functions and compromise on the naming of the functions. > > By definition, whatever we put in the H.323 mobility > document will have to be in the > context of the H.323 framework baseline. > > Lets keep an open mind as we move forward, > Y peace. We all may learn something and discover > new things. If possible lets start looking on compromise > solutions that satisfies all involved. Once we limit our > scope it limits us from progressing towards the future. > > Best Regards, > Ed > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > Hi, Ed and All: > > > > I do not know whether you have seen my reply to Jaakko. I am enclosing > it > > again. Please respond to my reply to provided Jaakko to prove your > > statement. > > > > I completely disagree with Ed. Please also see Marc Roelands's comments > on > > LA. > > > > AT&T contribution has shown how H.323 mobility problem can be solved > using > > home/foreign GK (zone). > > > > I like to see the complete H.323 mobility problem that has been solved > using > > the alternative approach as proposed by Nokia. I have NOT seen Nokia's > > solution yet. Unless a complete solution is provided like AT&T's, I am > NOT > > convinced how mobility problem can be solved in a better way. > > > > I also see that there is a need for HLF/VLF. No one against the HLF/VLF > > function. AT&T proposal also has shown how HLF/VLF function is taken > > care-of. > > > > What I disagree with is this: A protocol should NOT be implementation > > specific. For example, we do have a luxury to build one protocol for > > distributive GK (HLF/VLF) function, one protocol for centralized GK > > (HLF/VLF) function or one protocol for hybrid GK (HLF/HLF) function. It > is > > against the fundamental concept of H.323. For example, the same argument > can > > also be applied for the directory function. Similar may the case for > other > > functions as well. It is a complete break down of H.323 protocol and > > architecture. > > > > So, HLF/VLF is another function in H.323. HLF/VLF is NOT a "Holy Grail" > for > > which we have to create a complete "DISCONTINUITY" in existing H.323 > > protocol and architecture. I like see to Nokia's alternate solution to > > disprove this fear. > > > > Nokia has to bring a complete contribution providing solution like > AT&T's to > > prove their case. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with a concept that has > not > > proved with a solution. > > > > The problem can be solved as follows: > > > > 1. Let Nokia provide a complete proposal solving the H.323 mobility > problem > > using heir alternative approach. What Nokia has provided is a high level > > concept. They have NOT solved the problem yet. Let us see what the > complete > > solution is. If a solution is provided, we can then compare Nokia's > solution > > with that of AT&T's solution. Otherwise, their proposal is still > > HYPOTHETICAL. It is a concept, NOT a solution. > > > > 2. How can we agree on a concept without seeing its solution that has > the > > potential to break down the fundamental architecture of existing H.323 > > standard? > > > > 3. Let us solve H.323 mobility problem within the framework of H.323. > > > > 4. Let us move on with contributions for the part that we can agree on. > If > > Nokia brings a complete solution, we will definitely re-consider their > case. > > > > 5. I agree with you that we also need to work for interworking between > H.323 > > (IP) mobility and cellular-PSTN/ISDN network. > > > > Finally, Ed - you have made a statement, but it has to be proved > providing a > > solution. An alternative concept is there, but we have not seen its > solution > > yet. What is the problem to bring the alternate solution? Why do we need > to > > wait for a concept that has NOT been substantiated with a solution yet? > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:47 AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: Summary of discussion > > > Importance: High > > > > > > I agreed with most of Jaakko comments and also > > > make vaild points, and will like to > > > add the following. > > > > > > I believe that the (Home) in Home Zone should be taken out. > > > What we are talking about is the User's Point of Attached in > > > any given Zone. The HLF is ready and Data base > > > which has the User's profile and the current user's location. > > > We can get a new name to HLF and call it the Location Profile > > > Register (LPR) or Location Profile Function (LPF). > > > > > > I also believe that the (Visited) in Visited Zone sould also > > > be taken out because again we are talking about > > > the Users current Point of Attachment in any given Zone. > > > The VLF has the means to update the > > > Location Profile Register (LPR) from > > > any given Zone. We can get a new name to VLF > > > call it the Location Update Register (LUR) or > > > Location Update Function (LUF). > > > > > > Now we can also support concepts of Zone ID's > > > such as Current Zone ID and Previous Zone ID. > > > > > > Finally, > > > > > > And I strongly agree with looking at the interworking > > > in parallel with H.323 mobility. The time we spent > > > now looking at interworking will be compensated in the > > > long run. I sure does working on ISUP, IN and Qsig, inetrworking > > > with H.323 would agree and we should learn from their experience. > > > And not leave it for a last minute add-on. > > > > > > Lets take the contribution as they come, if one wants to put in > > > interworking fine. If one wants to put in contributions only H.323 > > > mobility also fine. Both are in order and within our scope. > > > > > > The general strategy should focus on ensuring that the H.323 > > > Mobility and interworking options are enabled, rather than spending > > > too much effort blocking alternative options (Our limited resources > > > frankly don't allow this luxury). But there really is no substitute > for > > > doing the work - preparing input papers and presenting them > > > to move things forward. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Ed > > [Roy, Radhika R] Hi, Jaakko: > > > > Pl. see my reply provided below. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM > [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:13 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: meeting > > > > Once again, hi, Radhika, Ed + all > > > > See my comments below... > > > > Hi, Jaakko, Ed, and All: > > > > I hope that Jaakko will get this mail while he > is in > > his > > office (Thanks > > Jaakko - you have reminded us the time > difference)! > > > > [Jaakko:] You caught me just in time. > > > > Please note the following: > > > > 1. Zone and domain are well defined in H.323. > > [Jaakko:] Yes, they are defined. > > > > 2. We have to work for mobility solution in a > way > > that fits > > very well that > > already exists in H.323. > > > > [Jaakko:] Agreed. > > > > 3. We can invent many things if we need to solve > > mobility > > problems only when > > we think that those functions are NOT covered in > > existing > > H.323 standard. > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes. > > > > 4. If mobility problems can be solved using the > > concept of > > "zones" and > > "domains," I would assume that it would be a big > > mile stone > > so far the > > continuity of H.323 is concerned. That is, as Ed > > pointed > > out, H.323 mobility > > problem is NOT a rocket science. We have to > remember > > that we > > are working in > > the framework of already existing H.323 standard > > architecture. We have to > > relate our solution in the context of existing > H.323 > > standard. In other > > words, we CANNOT change the fundamental concept > of > > existing > > H.323 standards > > just because we are addressing mobility. > > > > [Jaakko:] Yes, of course. I'm not arguing > against > > that. I > > guess you are referring to the Location Area discussion here. > The LA > > concept > > is really merely a scaling issue, you could of course handle > paging > > (I'm > > assuming that we will need the paging procedure) based on zones, > > i.e. page > > every NPoA in a zone when a call arrives, but this might be > quite > > limiting > > in some cases (the zone may be needlessly big or very small). I > do > > not think > > that we need to change any fundamental concepts of H.323, if we > > introduce > > the LA concept. > > [Roy, Radhika R] May be we can include LA when we see that we > need > > to optimize a zone further. We may revisit this in the second step. > > > > 5. I do not understand what benefits we are > gaining > > adding > > more > > "terminologies" like "AREA {home, foreign, etc}" > > while the > > "zone" and > > "domain" are already well defined in H.323. My > > personal view > > is that we > > should FIRST try to solve H.323 mobility > problems > > within the > > context of > > "zone" and "domain" as far as practicable. I > would > > argue > > that zone and > > domain are good enough to serve this purpose for > > now. (Pl. > > also see AT&T's > > and Motorola's contributions.) > > > > [Jaakko:] As I already said, I did not intent to > > define the > > terms: home area and visited area. I was just trying to > illustrate > > the point > > I was making about not having the Home/visited zone terms > defined > > yet. > > [Roy, Radhika R] It is good point. Let us define these. AT&T > > contributions have the detail definition for each term. > > > > 6. With respect to your comments that it appears > > that every > > GK will have HLF > > and VLF function, I would say that every GK will > > have the > > access to the HLF > > and VLF function. This capability for each GK > has to > > be > > provided because of > > the fact that H.323 architecture is GK-centric. > We > > do not > > have any choice > > because we are restricted by the H.323 > architecture. > > > > [Jaakko:] I did not argue against this. The > point is > > that if > > we identify a concept called the Home Zone, this already implies > > that each > > User has only one zone, in which he/she/it is not a "visiting > user". > > I think > > this would be really restricting. > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I mentioned that H.323 is the GK-centric. A > > user may change his/her network point of point attachment, but it is > still > > the same (Home) GK. So, a given (home) GK, there has to be another level > of > > granularity to address mobility in terms of network point of attachment. > > Please see AT&T contribution how home and foreign network concept have > > solved the problem. Similar is the case with Motorola's contribution. > The > > bottom line is that home/foreign GK concept does NOT imply any > restriction > > to solve H.323 mobility. > > > > 6.1 With respect to your question whether > HLF/VLF > > can be > > distributive or > > centralized, having said (in item 5) that every > GK > > should > > have access to HLF > > and VLF function, it is up to implementation > whether > > HLF and > > VLF function > > can be centralized or distributive. Please see > AT&T > > contributions submitted > > in Red Bank how we can implement these functions > in > > both > > distributive and > > centralized environment. > > > > [Jaakko:] This is actually quite much the point > I > > was > > making. By defining the Home Zone we would in my mind actually > be > > pointing > > to the centralized model. > > [Roy, Radhika R] By definition, there can as many GKs as one > wish > > have in an H.323 system. So, by definition, the GK-centric H.323 > > architecture is distributive. By defining home/foreign GK, H.323 > mobility > > also becomes distributive up to the point that a basic H.323 system > allows > > us. So, we do not see any limitations. > > > > 6.2 In an analogy of this HLF/VLF function, I > can > > bring > > another function - > > Directory services. For example, H.323 assumes > that > > all the > > address (e.g., > > alias, transport, network) are kept by each GK. > > H.323 does > > not answer how > > the address information is maintained by each > GK. > > People are > > using LDAP > > directory server. The question is: whether that > > directory > > service is > > distributive or centralized? I guess that it can > be > > done in > > both ways > > depending on implementation. > > > > [Jaakko:] My point exactly. I would like that > all > > GKs inside > > the same Administrative Domain would be able to access the same > > HLF/VLF > > functionality. > > [Roy, Radhika R] As I pointed out, this an implementation > issue. I > > would argue that we should allow both options and let an implementor > choose > > as it is necessary. Please also see AT&T contributions how both options > can > > be addressed. > > > > 6.3 In AT&T contribution, it is shown that it > better > > to make > > VLF > > distributive (per GK) although HLF function can > be > > made both > > distributive > > and centralized. Again, this is a matter of > > implementation. > > As mentioned in > > AT&T contribution, we also need to define a kind > of > > backend > > protocol for VLF > > and HLF (something like similar to Siemens, > Nokia > > and > > Intel's contribution - > > TD-39: Security Services for Backend Services > and > > Mobility > > in H.323). > > > > [Jaakko:] I would assume that you can distribute > the > > HLF/VLF > > functionalities inside the Administrative Domain as you like, > but > > distributing them between the Domains would be difficult. > Actually I > > think > > that the concept of Administrative Domain was introduced in > H.323 > > for this > > kind of reasons. > > [Roy, Radhika R] Again, H.323 system is GK-centric in a given > > domain. For inter-domain, it is BE-centric. In a given domain, H.323 > > architecture has to be GK-centric. Once we solve intra-zone and > inter-zone > > (intra-domain) mobility, we can extend our experience for inter-domain > > problem as well. Please also see AT&T contribution how these problems > have > > been addressed. My replies to 6.1 and 6.2 are also good for this case. > > > > 7. Again, I, personally, do not rule our to > > re-examine the > > benfit of "AREA" > > (e.g. location area [LA]) vs. "ZONE/DOMAIN" > concept. > > May be > > it is in the > > second step. > > > > [Jaakko:] I am just a bit afraid that if we > leave > > this kind > > of a major mobility related concept out of the first phase > thinking > > process, > > we will find it much more difficult to include the concept in > the > > second > > phase (where I think we will need it). Furthermore, I'm not > > convinced that > > the LA concept would not be useful in the pure H.323 approach > > either. > > [Roy, Radhika R] I think that it can be place holder for now. I > > would request to bring more detail contributions proposing solutions > like > > AT&T and Motorola to prove the case better. Then, we can compare both > > solutions. In AT&T contribution, I feel that the LA can be accommodated > to > > optimize the zone further. So, I do not see that it is a problem to > > accommodate the LA concept if needed. I personally prefer that we can > better > > address this in the second phase once we solve the problem for the basic > > architecture. > > > > Hope that this email will clarify the things > better. > > > > [Jaakko:] I think the main thing is that we got > the > > discussion going on again. I'm kind of tired already, and I hope > > that I > > didn't mess things up too much in this mail. > > [Roy, Radhika R] Definitely, I also like that discussions must > go > > on. We must be convinced that we have the best solution because it has > the > > severe implications for all on-going mobility standard works throughout > the > > world once we standardize H.323 mobility in SG16. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika > > > > Same to you, > > Jaakko > > > -- > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > -- > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re-send: [Robustness] Call Clearing related
by Orit Levin 07 Nov '99

07 Nov '99

I am re-sending my previous message upon getting an indication about network problems. Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin <orit(a)radvision.com> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Robustness] Call Clearing related >Hello Paul, Tzvi and all others! > >Yes, once again I am "in complete agreement with his proposal in Red Bank to >strike the text in the current version that allows for the closure of the >call signaling channel". This point of view is alignment with (a) in my >previous mail. Just to add to it: If we decide to keep in the Standard the >possibility to signal an intentional closure of Q.931 logical connection by >dropping its TCP connection, we make the future Recovery procedures much >more complicated. And I ask everybody on this list: Who knows about H.323 >existing commercial implementations that intentionally close Q.931 TCP >connection and expect the Call to be kept by the other side? Based on >RADVision's internal resources and being participants in all >interoperability events, we don't know of any! > >In regards to (b): >Tzvi! To recover from a GK crash (for all types of calls) should be one of >the first topics of Robustness Work. There is no question about it!!! My >point (b) was that in order to achieve the solution, the "passive" behavior >of EP (a sort of implying in the Standard today) would not >help. Additional new procedures have to be added to H.323 in the context of >Robustness work. Today's Endpoints don't support these future procedures, >therefore their passive behavior (or T.O.) will not solve the problem even >if the other side supports the new Robustness Procedures. > >Why passive behavior /T.O. doesn't help: > >(1) When an application (such as H.323) gets a notification from TCP >layer about the failure of specific TCP connection (port+IP), the connection >is already closed by the TCP layer. The only way to revive Q.931 connection >is to LISTEN for a NEW incoming connection, accept it and somehow (such as >by callID) to logically attach the new TCP connection to the old Call. If it >had been the only problem in the puzzle (which is not: see (2) below) >technically it could have been defined, but it is NOT today. (This is >definitely a job for our Robustness group.) Therefore NO H.323v1-3 compliant >EP implements such a procedure! > >(2) The more difficult problem is that upon TCP channel failure, the TPKT >connection above gets out of synch. It means that the application layer >doesn't know automatically what part of information got lost. In this case, >in order to synchronize H.323 Call state between the two sides, application >level handshake must be introduced. This is also definitely a job for our >Robustness group. > >Cheers, >Orit Levin >RADVision Inc. >575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 >Mahwah, NJ 07430 >Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) >Fax: 1 201 529 3516 >www.radvision.com >orit(a)radvision.com > >

1 0

None
by ITU-SG16＠MAILBAG.CPS.INTEL.COM 07 Nov '99

07 Nov '99

NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE This email could not be delivered. Please resend to try again. NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE Received: from mx10.netvision.net.il ([194.90.1.52]) by 199.203.164.18 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Sun, 07 Nov 1999 06:45:30 0000 (GMT) Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mx10.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14583 for <roni_e(a)ACCORD.CO.IL>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:10:18 +0200 (IST) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id OAA29715; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 170771 for ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:10:48 -0800 Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net ([38.202.36.29]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id OAA29711 for <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from software_1 ([38.150.216.23]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991105220816.QQGV4501.hvmta01-stg@software_1> for <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:08:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <00e801bf27da$6f1d2cc0$17d89626(a)software_1.radvision.com> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:09:30 -0500 Reply-To: Orit Levin <orit(a)radvision.com> Sender: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> From: Orit Levin <orit(a)radvision.com> Subject: Re: [Robustness] Call Clearing related Comments: To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Hello Paul, Tzvi and all others! Yes, once again I am "in complete agreement with his proposal in Red Bank to strike the text in the current version that allows for the closure of the call signaling channel". This point of view is alignment with (a) in my previous mail. Just to add to it: If we decide to keep in the Standard the possibility to signal an intentional closure of Q.931 logical connection by dropping its TCP connection, we make the future Recovery procedures much more complicated. And I ask everybody on this list: Who knows about H.323 existing commercial implementations that intentionally close Q.931 TCP connection and expect the Call to be kept by the other side? Based on RADVision's internal resources and being participants in all interoperability events, we don't know of any! In regards to (b): Tzvi! To recover from a GK crash (for all types of calls) should be one of the first topics of Robustness Work. There is no question about it!!! My point (b) was that in order to achieve the solution, the "passive" behavior of EP (a sort of implying in the Standard today) would not help. Additional new procedures have to be added to H.323 in the context of Robustness work. Today's Endpoints don't support these future procedures, therefore their passive behavior (or T.O.) will not solve the problem even if the other side supports the new Robustness Procedures. Why passive behavior /T.O. doesn't help: (1) When an application (such as H.323) gets a notification from TCP layer about the failure of specific TCP connection (port+IP), the connection is already closed by the TCP layer. The only way to revive Q.931 connection is to LISTEN for a NEW incoming connection, accept it and somehow (such as by callID) to logically attach the new TCP connection to the old Call. If it had been the only problem in the puzzle (which is not: see (2) below) technically it could have been defined, but it is NOT today. (This is definitely a job for our Robustness group.) Therefore NO H.323v1-3 compliant EP implements such a procedure! (2) The more difficult problem is that upon TCP channel failure, the TPKT connection above gets out of synch. It means that the application layer doesn't know automatically what part of information got lost. In this case, in order to synchronize H.323 Call state between the two sides, application level handshake must be introduced. This is also definitely a job for our Robustness group. Cheers, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com

1 0

Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
by Edgar Martinez [1] 05 Nov '99

05 Nov '99

To the Mobile Ad-hoc Colleges: What we have here is an opportunity to build a good working relationship. But, it seems at this time, we are in feeling out stage. Solutions and proposals are being worked within companies and in difference standards, which want to find a place in the work we are doing but, I think compromise is in order. The only thing I was suggesting in by email, was that the word "Home and Visited" bother soon of our colleges. So my suggestion was to persevere the functions and compromise on the naming of the functions. By definition, whatever we put in the H.323 mobility document will have to be in the context of the H.323 framework baseline. Lets keep an open mind as we move forward, Y peace. We all may learn something and discover new things. If possible lets start looking on compromise solutions that satisfies all involved. Once we limit our scope it limits us from progressing towards the future. Best Regards, Ed "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Ed and All: > > I do not know whether you have seen my reply to Jaakko. I am enclosing it > again. Please respond to my reply to provided Jaakko to prove your > statement. > > I completely disagree with Ed. Please also see Marc Roelands's comments on > LA. > > AT&T contribution has shown how H.323 mobility problem can be solved using > home/foreign GK (zone). > > I like to see the complete H.323 mobility problem that has been solved using > the alternative approach as proposed by Nokia. I have NOT seen Nokia's > solution yet. Unless a complete solution is provided like AT&T's, I am NOT > convinced how mobility problem can be solved in a better way. > > I also see that there is a need for HLF/VLF. No one against the HLF/VLF > function. AT&T proposal also has shown how HLF/VLF function is taken > care-of. > > What I disagree with is this: A protocol should NOT be implementation > specific. For example, we do have a luxury to build one protocol for > distributive GK (HLF/VLF) function, one protocol for centralized GK > (HLF/VLF) function or one protocol for hybrid GK (HLF/HLF) function. It is > against the fundamental concept of H.323. For example, the same argument can > also be applied for the directory function. Similar may the case for other > functions as well. It is a complete break down of H.323 protocol and > architecture. > > So, HLF/VLF is another function in H.323. HLF/VLF is NOT a "Holy Grail" for > which we have to create a complete "DISCONTINUITY" in existing H.323 > protocol and architecture. I like see to Nokia's alternate solution to > disprove this fear. > > Nokia has to bring a complete contribution providing solution like AT&T's to > prove their case. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with a concept that has not > proved with a solution. > > The problem can be solved as follows: > > 1. Let Nokia provide a complete proposal solving the H.323 mobility problem > using heir alternative approach. What Nokia has provided is a high level > concept. They have NOT solved the problem yet. Let us see what the complete > solution is. If a solution is provided, we can then compare Nokia's solution > with that of AT&T's solution. Otherwise, their proposal is still > HYPOTHETICAL. It is a concept, NOT a solution. > > 2. How can we agree on a concept without seeing its solution that has the > potential to break down the fundamental architecture of existing H.323 > standard? > > 3. Let us solve H.323 mobility problem within the framework of H.323. > > 4. Let us move on with contributions for the part that we can agree on. If > Nokia brings a complete solution, we will definitely re-consider their case. > > 5. I agree with you that we also need to work for interworking between H.323 > (IP) mobility and cellular-PSTN/ISDN network. > > Finally, Ed - you have made a statement, but it has to be proved providing a > solution. An alternative concept is there, but we have not seen its solution > yet. What is the problem to bring the alternate solution? Why do we need to > wait for a concept that has NOT been substantiated with a solution yet? > > Best regards, > Radhika > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:47 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: H323mobility: Summary of discussion > > Importance: High > > > > I agreed with most of Jaakko comments and also > > make vaild points, and will like to > > add the following. > > > > I believe that the (Home) in Home Zone should be taken out. > > What we are talking about is the User's Point of Attached in > > any given Zone. The HLF is ready and Data base > > which has the User's profile and the current user's location. > > We can get a new name to HLF and call it the Location Profile > > Register (LPR) or Location Profile Function (LPF). > > > > I also believe that the (Visited) in Visited Zone sould also > > be taken out because again we are talking about > > the Users current Point of Attachment in any given Zone. > > The VLF has the means to update the > > Location Profile Register (LPR) from > > any given Zone. We can get a new name to VLF > > call it the Location Update Register (LUR) or > > Location Update Function (LUF). > > > > Now we can also support concepts of Zone ID's > > such as Current Zone ID and Previous Zone ID. > > > > Finally, > > > > And I strongly agree with looking at the interworking > > in parallel with H.323 mobility. The time we spent > > now looking at interworking will be compensated in the > > long run. I sure does working on ISUP, IN and Qsig, inetrworking > > with H.323 would agree and we should learn from their experience. > > And not leave it for a last minute add-on. > > > > Lets take the contribution as they come, if one wants to put in > > interworking fine. If one wants to put in contributions only H.323 > > mobility also fine. Both are in order and within our scope. > > > > The general strategy should focus on ensuring that the H.323 > > Mobility and interworking options are enabled, rather than spending > > too much effort blocking alternative options (Our limited resources > > frankly don't allow this luxury). But there really is no substitute for > > doing the work - preparing input papers and presenting them > > to move things forward. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Ed > [Roy, Radhika R] Hi, Jaakko: > > Pl. see my reply provided below. > > Best regards, > Radhika > > -----Original Message----- > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:13 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323mobility: meeting > > Once again, hi, Radhika, Ed + all > > See my comments below... > > Hi, Jaakko, Ed, and All: > > I hope that Jaakko will get this mail while he is in > his > office (Thanks > Jaakko - you have reminded us the time difference)! > > [Jaakko:] You caught me just in time. > > Please note the following: > > 1. Zone and domain are well defined in H.323. > [Jaakko:] Yes, they are defined. > > 2. We have to work for mobility solution in a way > that fits > very well that > already exists in H.323. > > [Jaakko:] Agreed. > > 3. We can invent many things if we need to solve > mobility > problems only when > we think that those functions are NOT covered in > existing > H.323 standard. > > [Jaakko:] Yes. > > 4. If mobility problems can be solved using the > concept of > "zones" and > "domains," I would assume that it would be a big > mile stone > so far the > continuity of H.323 is concerned. That is, as Ed > pointed > out, H.323 mobility > problem is NOT a rocket science. We have to remember > that we > are working in > the framework of already existing H.323 standard > architecture. We have to > relate our solution in the context of existing H.323 > standard. In other > words, we CANNOT change the fundamental concept of > existing > H.323 standards > just because we are addressing mobility. > > [Jaakko:] Yes, of course. I'm not arguing against > that. I > guess you are referring to the Location Area discussion here. The LA > concept > is really merely a scaling issue, you could of course handle paging > (I'm > assuming that we will need the paging procedure) based on zones, > i.e. page > every NPoA in a zone when a call arrives, but this might be quite > limiting > in some cases (the zone may be needlessly big or very small). I do > not think > that we need to change any fundamental concepts of H.323, if we > introduce > the LA concept. > [Roy, Radhika R] May be we can include LA when we see that we need > to optimize a zone further. We may revisit this in the second step. > > 5. I do not understand what benefits we are gaining > adding > more > "terminologies" like "AREA {home, foreign, etc}" > while the > "zone" and > "domain" are already well defined in H.323. My > personal view > is that we > should FIRST try to solve H.323 mobility problems > within the > context of > "zone" and "domain" as far as practicable. I would > argue > that zone and > domain are good enough to serve this purpose for > now. (Pl. > also see AT&T's > and Motorola's contributions.) > > [Jaakko:] As I already said, I did not intent to > define the > terms: home area and visited area. I was just trying to illustrate > the point > I was making about not having the Home/visited zone terms defined > yet. > [Roy, Radhika R] It is good point. Let us define these. AT&T > contributions have the detail definition for each term. > > 6. With respect to your comments that it appears > that every > GK will have HLF > and VLF function, I would say that every GK will > have the > access to the HLF > and VLF function. This capability for each GK has to > be > provided because of > the fact that H.323 architecture is GK-centric. We > do not > have any choice > because we are restricted by the H.323 architecture. > > [Jaakko:] I did not argue against this. The point is > that if > we identify a concept called the Home Zone, this already implies > that each > User has only one zone, in which he/she/it is not a "visiting user". > I think > this would be really restricting. > [Roy, Radhika R] As I mentioned that H.323 is the GK-centric. A > user may change his/her network point of point attachment, but it is still > the same (Home) GK. So, a given (home) GK, there has to be another level of > granularity to address mobility in terms of network point of attachment. > Please see AT&T contribution how home and foreign network concept have > solved the problem. Similar is the case with Motorola's contribution. The > bottom line is that home/foreign GK concept does NOT imply any restriction > to solve H.323 mobility. > > 6.1 With respect to your question whether HLF/VLF > can be > distributive or > centralized, having said (in item 5) that every GK > should > have access to HLF > and VLF function, it is up to implementation whether > HLF and > VLF function > can be centralized or distributive. Please see AT&T > contributions submitted > in Red Bank how we can implement these functions in > both > distributive and > centralized environment. > > [Jaakko:] This is actually quite much the point I > was > making. By defining the Home Zone we would in my mind actually be > pointing > to the centralized model. > [Roy, Radhika R] By definition, there can as many GKs as one wish > have in an H.323 system. So, by definition, the GK-centric H.323 > architecture is distributive. By defining home/foreign GK, H.323 mobility > also becomes distributive up to the point that a basic H.323 system allows > us. So, we do not see any limitations. > > 6.2 In an analogy of this HLF/VLF function, I can > bring > another function - > Directory services. For example, H.323 assumes that > all the > address (e.g., > alias, transport, network) are kept by each GK. > H.323 does > not answer how > the address information is maintained by each GK. > People are > using LDAP > directory server. The question is: whether that > directory > service is > distributive or centralized? I guess that it can be > done in > both ways > depending on implementation. > > [Jaakko:] My point exactly. I would like that all > GKs inside > the same Administrative Domain would be able to access the same > HLF/VLF > functionality. > [Roy, Radhika R] As I pointed out, this an implementation issue. I > would argue that we should allow both options and let an implementor choose > as it is necessary. Please also see AT&T contributions how both options can > be addressed. > > 6.3 In AT&T contribution, it is shown that it better > to make > VLF > distributive (per GK) although HLF function can be > made both > distributive > and centralized. Again, this is a matter of > implementation. > As mentioned in > AT&T contribution, we also need to define a kind of > backend > protocol for VLF > and HLF (something like similar to Siemens, Nokia > and > Intel's contribution - > TD-39: Security Services for Backend Services and > Mobility > in H.323). > > [Jaakko:] I would assume that you can distribute the > HLF/VLF > functionalities inside the Administrative Domain as you like, but > distributing them between the Domains would be difficult. Actually I > think > that the concept of Administrative Domain was introduced in H.323 > for this > kind of reasons. > [Roy, Radhika R] Again, H.323 system is GK-centric in a given > domain. For inter-domain, it is BE-centric. In a given domain, H.323 > architecture has to be GK-centric. Once we solve intra-zone and inter-zone > (intra-domain) mobility, we can extend our experience for inter-domain > problem as well. Please also see AT&T contribution how these problems have > been addressed. My replies to 6.1 and 6.2 are also good for this case. > > 7. Again, I, personally, do not rule our to > re-examine the > benfit of "AREA" > (e.g. location area [LA]) vs. "ZONE/DOMAIN" concept. > May be > it is in the > second step. > > [Jaakko:] I am just a bit afraid that if we leave > this kind > of a major mobility related concept out of the first phase thinking > process, > we will find it much more difficult to include the concept in the > second > phase (where I think we will need it). Furthermore, I'm not > convinced that > the LA concept would not be useful in the pure H.323 approach > either. > [Roy, Radhika R] I think that it can be place holder for now. I > would request to bring more detail contributions proposing solutions like > AT&T and Motorola to prove the case better. Then, we can compare both > solutions. In AT&T contribution, I feel that the LA can be accommodated to > optimize the zone further. So, I do not see that it is a problem to > accommodate the LA concept if needed. I personally prefer that we can better > address this in the second phase once we solve the problem for the basic > architecture. > > Hope that this email will clarify the things better. > > [Jaakko:] I think the main thing is that we got the > discussion going on again. I'm kind of tired already, and I hope > that I > didn't mess things up too much in this mail. > [Roy, Radhika R] Definitely, I also like that discussions must go > on. We must be convinced that we have the best solution because it has the > severe implications for all on-going mobility standard works throughout the > world once we standardize H.323 mobility in SG16. > > Best regards, > Radhika > > Same to you, > Jaakko > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0