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

Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions
by Ami Amir 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Pete, It seems to me that your idea is great, and the right approach. I might be asking something out of context - but doesn't this neat model break down once we decided to do fast connect - and in essence convey bearer control inside the call control? Can we now assume that the versions can gallop along independently. Regards Ami -----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell@BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 5:05 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions Dear All, Just to clarify why the original question was asked,.... It can be readily observed that functionality can be added to H.245 without affecting H.225. (For example, object oriented caps which enables H.RDC etc) They are also functionally separate items. In telco parlance (sorry!) H.225 is call control (or user invitation etc) and H.245 is bearer control (or media control). It is quite legitimate for them to evolve at different paces as to a large degree they are orthogonal items. At a technical level I can see no benefit from inferring the version number of one from the version number of the other (any examples welcome) as these are basically two functional sub-systems working autonomously with only loose coupling (e.g. start, stop etc). Also, as a gatekeeper can do call re-routing as defined in H.450 - assuming that the gatekeeper wants to relay messages as much as possible to allow the full functionality of the attached endpoints to be realised and not dumb-down the messaging to its level - an endpoint may well receive different versions of H.245 as the life of the call evolves (e.g. first connect to IVR, then route to agent, then connect to sales etc). In this case inferring the H.245 version of the endpoint that you are connected to, say, third in a set of re-routes from the H.225 version of the first endpoint you are connected to is totally bogus. However, to make life easier, if for marketing/procurement purposes alone, it does make sense for an H.323 version to require a minimum level of support from H.225 and H.245. As H.323 and H.225 are intimately linked, saying that the H.323 version is one and the same as the H.225 version is no problem. However, in a technology that is in its infancy and still trying to find its feet in terms of how people want to use it, it seems unreasonable to link H.245 versions explicitly in with the H.225 issue cycle if modifying H.245 allows more timely adaptation to perceived evolving market needs. For this reason I believe that the relationship of the H.245 version should be of the "or later" type so that exploitation of enhancements to H.245 do not need to wait for a new issue of H.323. As an example of why this is attractive, it may be the case that there are no changes needed to justify an H.225 version 4. However, enhancements may be made to H.245 after H.225 version 3 is issued. What would we do with H.323/H.225 in this case? Regards, Pete ================================= Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell(a)bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 ================================= >---------- >From: Santo Wiryaman[SMTP:swiryaman@VIDEOSERVER.COM] >Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 >Sent: 05 February 1999 13:36 >To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions > >Jim, >I do support this position. Thanks. >-santo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Toga [SMTP:jim.toga@INTEL.COM] >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 6:29 PM >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com >> Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions >> >> Chris (and others) >> >> I'm penning up text (proposed) for the implementers guide. (Which I will >> post here for comments by tommorow) At this point I'm going to go with >> Paul's suggestion below even in light of your comments. Here's the >> reasoning: >> >> If the GK is routing H.225.0 and _not_ H.245 (which is for further study, >> btw) then is should _not_ be messing with any syntax/encoding that it >> absolutely does not understand (for exactly this reason). If it is >> routing >> both, then it can 'proxy' and give what-ever 'face' revision to the >> protocol that it wants (as long as it is consistent). >> >> I think what we gain by constraining the mix'n-match is consistency and >> predictability. The cost is that, as we revise the 'umbrella' H.323 >> Recommendation - products may have to support 'sets' of H.225.0/H.245 to >> play in multiple worlds. I don't see any great _system_ advantage to >> allowing vendors to provide a complete hodge-podge of stack revisions. >> (This is orthogonal to allowing vendors to provide a hodge-podge of stack >> support - H.235, annex E, annex G etc...) >> >> Regards, >> jimt. >> >> >> At 12:36 PM 2/1/99 -0000, you wrote: >> >Paul (and others), >> > >> >Consider the case of a v1 gatekeeper routing H.225.0 and NOT H.245 in a >> call >> >between two v2 endpoints. The gatekeeper certainly MAY relegate the >> H.225.0 >> >messages to v1. This may be a policy decision, or it may be due to stack >> >capabilities. Note that the gatekeeper may not always desire to relay >> >messages entirely transparently, and is entirely within its rights to >> make >> >this sort of alteration (although people writing H.323 stacks for >> >gatekeepers would probably be well advised to implement relaying of >> messages >> >or message fragments). Certainly the standard should not mandate that >> >message relay should be entirely transparent. Anyway, the upshot of this >> is >> >that all H.225.0 messages in the call will be relegated to v1 by the >> >gatekeeper. The H.245 session runs directly end-to-end and will hence be >> >version 3, so both endpoints in the call need to be able to cope with an >> >H.245 session of a different version from that implied by the H.225.0 >> >session. >> > >> >Similar discrepancies may occur in the opposite direction (later version >> of >> >H.225.0 than H.245) for similar, but marginally more complex reasons. >> > >> >So what do we gain by insisting on an endpoint supporting EXACTLY version >> 3 >> >of H.245 if it happens to be EXACTLY version 2 of H.225.0 and vice versa? >> >Although I agree that it is what is currently specified I'm unconvinced >> it >> >buys us anything. >> > >> >Regards, >> >Chris >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] >> >> Sent: 29 January 1999 8:09 >> >> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >> >> Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions >> >> >> >> >> >> Gary, >> >> >> >> You be the judge: >> >> >> >> Summary/H.323v2: "Products claiming compliance with Version 2 >> >> of H.323 shall >> >> comply with all of the mandatory requirements of this >> >> document, H.323 (1998), >> >> which references H.225.0 (1998) and H.245 (1998). Version 2 >> >> products can be >> >> identified by H.225.0 messages containing a >> >> protocolIdentifier = {itu-t (0) >> >> recommendation (0) h (8) 2250 version (0) 2} and H.225.0 >> >> messages containing a >> >> protocolIdentifier = {itu-t (0) recommendation (0) h (8) 245 >> >> version (0) 3}." >> >> >> >> Assuming this text is normative, H.323v2 uses H.225.0v2 and >> >> H.245v3. Period. >> >> >> >> IMO, we will be asking for big trouble if we at some point >> >> decide that one can >> >> mix and match versions and even use subsets or supersets of a >> >> particular >> >> version. Whatever interoperability problems we have now will >> >> be magnified many >> >> times over if we head down that slippery slope. >> >> >> >> Paul Long >> >> Smith Micro Software, Inc. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Gary A. Thom [SMTP:gthom@DELTA-INFO.COM] >> >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:37 PM >> >> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >> >> Subject: Re: Relationship of H.323 and H.245 versions >> >> >> >> One more question???? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Dave, >> >> > >> >> > Sorry, but I won't be in Monterey. >> >> > >> >> > I agree with what you say, except that I would go >> >> further and state >> >> that there >> >> > is always a one-to-one mapping between H.225.0 and H.245 >> >> protocolIdentifiers >> >> > via H.323. For example, >> >> > >> >> > H.225.0v1 => H.323v1 => H.245v2 and H.245v2 => >> >> H.323v1 => >> >> H.225.0v1 >> >> > H.225.0v2 => H.323v2 => H.245v3 and H.245v3 => >> >> H.323v2 => >> >> H.225.0v2 >> >> > >> >> > This is already implied by the Summary section of >> >> H.323 starting >> >> with version >> >> > 2. I think it's clear, but you could add >> >> clarification text if you >> >> like. IOW, >> >> > for example, an EP cannot use H.245v2 and H.225.0v2 >> >> in the same >> >> call. >> >> > >> >> >> >> But can H.225.0 V2 (H.323 V2) and H.245V4 (or 5) be >> >> used in the same >> >> call??? >> >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Name : Gary A. Thom >> >> Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc. >> >> Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3 >> >> Horsham, PA 19044 USA >> >> Phone : +1-215-657-5270 Fax : +1-215-657-5273 >> >> E-mail : gthom(a)delta-info.com >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > >> +1-503-264-8816(voice) Intel - Hillsboro, OR >> mailto:jim.toga@intel.com mailto:james.toga@ties.itu.int >> PGP keyID 36 07 86 49 7D 74 DF 57 50 CB BA 32 08 9C 7C 41 >

1 0

APC-1524 Uploaded
by Pete Cordell 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Dear Mr. Okubo, I have uploaded APC-1524 to the PictureTel site. Please be advised that APC-1524a.zip is the correct version. A fault occurred when attempting the upload initially. Regards, Pete Cordell ================================= Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell(a)bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 =================================

1 0

Re: Comments to draft H.450.8
by Roni Even 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Dear all, I read H.450.8 and I have to agree with Linh. It is not clear why we need another method to create a conference. If there are problems in the current method we can fix it. The benefit of the H.323 method is that you do not need to support h4501SupplementaryService APDUs to create an ad hoc conference and it achieves the same purpose. Thanks Roni Even ********************************************** Roni Even VP Product Marketing Accord Video Telecommunication Email: roni_e(a)accord.co.il Tel: +972-3-9251412 Fax: +972-3-9211571 *************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Truong Hong-Linh [SMTP:ctNotes@ZURICH.IBM.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:02 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Comments to draft H.450.8 > > Dear Karl, > > Thanks for putting together draft H.450.8. In the editors note of > section > 8.3.3 you re-produced only your own viewpoints. I'm missing at least > the > points I've made during the private discussion I've had with you and > many > others. I therefore take the liberty to repeat them here again. > > The main concern I've against H.450.8 is that we will have two > different > ways of doing conferencing, one defined in H.323 section 8.4.3 and one > in > H.450.8. The two differ only marginally; almost of the conference > service > defined by H.450.8 can be performed by using the protocols and > procedures > defined in the current H.323 version 2 (which I will show later on in > going > point by point through your list of defiencies). I fear that having > two > conferencing methods will lead to interoperability problems and > confusion of > the users. > > I acknowledge that you have tried to resolve the interoperability > problems > between the two methods in introducing a fall-back feature which > allows an > H.450.8 CSSE to talk to an MCU and in using as much as possible > existing > H.245 procedures, but I'm not sure whether we oversee some. > > The problem of users confusion still remains. How should we explain to > them > that we need in H.323 two conferencing methods? The items you listed > in your > editors note in section 8.3.3 are in my opinion of minor importance, > since > they improve only marginally the performance of the service. However, > if you > insist on having them, then I think that it is better to add them to > the > current H.323 method instead of inventing a new method which differs > very > little from the old one. > > Let me now go through the points you made in your editors note. > > >a) The SETUP message from the endpoint A to the MCU does not tell > >the MCU how many remote users B, C, ... are going to be re-routed to > >the MCU. I.e. MCU resources may not be reserved appropriately. > > I do not see the need for that. The PBX I use here in Zurich (BTW it's > a > HiCom :-) ) does not require me to input that information any time I > start a > conference. And I'd feel annoying if I have to. Furthermore, how can I > know > a-priori how many participants I'll have in my ad-hoc conference? > > >b) The SETUP message from the endpoint A to the MCU does not tell > >the MCU the addresses of the parties to be re-routed. The MCU may > have > >to accept any re-routed call (security issue ?). > > If security is really a concern, then I'd use other means e.g. H.235 > to > protect my conference instead of sending an unprotected list to the > CUSE. > BTW if you don't like or have problems with the FACILITY > "re-routeToMC", > then you can still let the endpoint which wants to create the > conference > INVITES the participants (using H.323 clauses 8.4.3.2 and 8.4.3.5). > You will > then end up with exactely what you want to achieve in H.450.8! > > >c) The served user A does not get feedback from the MCU in CONNECT > >message whether the intended feature can be supported by the MCU (no > >acknowledgement in CONNECT). > > Which intended feature you are talking about here? > > >d) Although FACILITY message itself is mandatory in H.225.0, not > >every endpoint may support the "Facility re-route to MC" method and > >thus, not every endpoint may participate in SS-CoC as remote > endpoint. > >A remote endpoint may intentionally block Facility re-route messages > >in general for e.g. security reasons. > > >e) With H.450.8, the remote endpoints receive incoming H.323 calls > >from the MCU (i.e. the MCU establishes the calls). With H.450.8 the > >remote endpoints do not necessarily have to support H.450.8 and can > >still participate in SS-CoC (i.e. the confEstablish Invoke APDU may > be > >ignored). > > Again, if you don't like the FACILITY message, you can use the already > defined H.323 INVITATION method to add the participants to the > conference. > In this case -as you wish- the remote endpoints do not have to support > FACILITY "re-routeToMC". And in addition to that you even do not have > to > implement H.450.8 to create a conference. You just need to implement > H.323 > version 2! > > >f) If the "Facility re-route to MC" is supported by the remote > >endpoint, H.323 clause 8.4.3.7 allows different options, e.g. to > >immediately clear the call to the served endpoint A. > >g) If the remote endpoint immediately clears the call, the served > >endpoint A would not receive any feedback whether the remote endpoint > can support the request. > >h) If the remote endpoint immediately clears the call, the served > >endpoint A would not receive any information about a possible > >unsuccessful call establishment from the remote endpoint to the MCU, > >and thus the call may be lost. > >i) If the remote endpoint B would NOT immediately clear the call and > >the call establishment from the remote endpoint to the MCU fails, > >there is not signal in H.225.0 to inform the served endpoint A. > > I don't see the need for an explicit confirmation in all of the cases > above. > From an user's point of view, he/she will get from the MC the > information of > who are on the conference and therefore can derive out of that > information > which calls have failed. And if the H.323 invitation method is used, > the > information on whether the invitation succeeds or not is more than > explicit. > > >j) It is the remote endpoint - and not the remote endpoint user - > >that establishes the call to the MCU. This may result in the remote > >endpoint being charged for the call (which may not be acceptable to > >the remote endpoint user). > > The invitation method could be used to avoid that. > But, as discussed within our private conversation, the charging issue > is an > important one and also affects the transfer feature defined in > H.450.2. I > don't agree that we can resolve the charging issue in just letting the > MCU > establishing the calls. There are situations in which I don't want to > pay > for the others just because I'm the one who calls the conference. I > believe > we need to think and discuss more carefully about that issue and all > of its > impact, and not only for the conference service but also for the other > ones. > > >k) The MCU does not provide detailed conference notification > >information to the endpoints. In H.450.8, conference notification > >(conferenceIndication Invoke APDU) is provided to all conference > >participants (containing e.g. alias addresses, names, endpoint types, > status, etc.). > > The alias addresses can be requested from the MC using H.245 Terminal > ID > Request. For the other information, I don't understand why do you need > them. > What are you going to do with them? And if needed, why can't we add > them to > the H.245 MC Terminal ID response? > > >l) A terminal has to ask for receiving a list of conference > >participants (H.245 terminalListRequest). In ISDN and PBX > networking, > >it is the entity containing the conference bridge (i.e. the CUSE) > that > >provides information about the conference participants. Due to this > >different function split interworking with SCN may be more difficult. > > But it eases the interworking with other H.32x conferencing systems. > It is > my understanding the H.245 is designed for that aim. > > >m) Missing signalling elements as identified in different items > >above could be added to H.225.0 or H.245. However, this would create > >new versions of these standards. The endpoints participating in SS- > >CoC would have to be of a certain H.323/H.225.0/H.245 version > >(backwards compatibility problem). Still, there would be the problem > >of not all endpoints supporting the "Facility re-route to MC" method. > > See my comments above on the missing items. Also, why is adding > something to > H.323/H.225/H.245 causing backward compability problem? The items you > want > to add can be ignored by an endpoint that do not understand them, but > we > still can convene a conference. > > >n) With H.450.8, the base standards H.323, H.225.0 and H.245 are not > affected. > > With H.323 version 2 we can already do conferencing, even the way you > want > to have. We do not need H.450.8. > > Regards, > Linh > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > TRUONG Hong Linh hlt(a)zurich.ibm.com > IBM Zurich Research Laboratory tel : +41 1 724 8434 > CH-8803 Rueschlikon / Switzerland fax : +41 1 724 8955

1 0

Comments to draft H.450.8
by Truong Hong-Linh 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Dear Karl, Thanks for putting together draft H.450.8. In the editors note of section 8.3.3 you re-produced only your own viewpoints. I'm missing at least the points I've made during the private discussion I've had with you and many others. I therefore take the liberty to repeat them here again. The main concern I've against H.450.8 is that we will have two different ways of doing conferencing, one defined in H.323 section 8.4.3 and one in H.450.8. The two differ only marginally; almost of the conference service defined by H.450.8 can be performed by using the protocols and procedures defined in the current H.323 version 2 (which I will show later on in going point by point through your list of defiencies). I fear that having two conferencing methods will lead to interoperability problems and confusion of the users. I acknowledge that you have tried to resolve the interoperability problems between the two methods in introducing a fall-back feature which allows an H.450.8 CSSE to talk to an MCU and in using as much as possible existing H.245 procedures, but I'm not sure whether we oversee some. The problem of users confusion still remains. How should we explain to them that we need in H.323 two conferencing methods? The items you listed in your editors note in section 8.3.3 are in my opinion of minor importance, since they improve only marginally the performance of the service. However, if you insist on having them, then I think that it is better to add them to the current H.323 method instead of inventing a new method which differs very little from the old one. Let me now go through the points you made in your editors note. >a) The SETUP message from the endpoint A to the MCU does not tell >the MCU how many remote users B, C, ... are going to be re-routed to >the MCU. I.e. MCU resources may not be reserved appropriately. I do not see the need for that. The PBX I use here in Zurich (BTW it's a HiCom :-) ) does not require me to input that information any time I start a conference. And I'd feel annoying if I have to. Furthermore, how can I know a-priori how many participants I'll have in my ad-hoc conference? >b) The SETUP message from the endpoint A to the MCU does not tell >the MCU the addresses of the parties to be re-routed. The MCU may have >to accept any re-routed call (security issue ?). If security is really a concern, then I'd use other means e.g. H.235 to protect my conference instead of sending an unprotected list to the CUSE. BTW if you don't like or have problems with the FACILITY "re-routeToMC", then you can still let the endpoint which wants to create the conference INVITES the participants (using H.323 clauses 8.4.3.2 and 8.4.3.5). You will then end up with exactely what you want to achieve in H.450.8! >c) The served user A does not get feedback from the MCU in CONNECT >message whether the intended feature can be supported by the MCU (no >acknowledgement in CONNECT). Which intended feature you are talking about here? >d) Although FACILITY message itself is mandatory in H.225.0, not >every endpoint may support the "Facility re-route to MC" method and >thus, not every endpoint may participate in SS-CoC as remote endpoint. >A remote endpoint may intentionally block Facility re-route messages >in general for e.g. security reasons. >e) With H.450.8, the remote endpoints receive incoming H.323 calls >from the MCU (i.e. the MCU establishes the calls). With H.450.8 the >remote endpoints do not necessarily have to support H.450.8 and can >still participate in SS-CoC (i.e. the confEstablish Invoke APDU may be >ignored). Again, if you don't like the FACILITY message, you can use the already defined H.323 INVITATION method to add the participants to the conference. In this case -as you wish- the remote endpoints do not have to support FACILITY "re-routeToMC". And in addition to that you even do not have to implement H.450.8 to create a conference. You just need to implement H.323 version 2! >f) If the "Facility re-route to MC" is supported by the remote >endpoint, H.323 clause 8.4.3.7 allows different options, e.g. to >immediately clear the call to the served endpoint A. >g) If the remote endpoint immediately clears the call, the served >endpoint A would not receive any feedback whether the remote endpoint can support the request. >h) If the remote endpoint immediately clears the call, the served >endpoint A would not receive any information about a possible >unsuccessful call establishment from the remote endpoint to the MCU, >and thus the call may be lost. >i) If the remote endpoint B would NOT immediately clear the call and >the call establishment from the remote endpoint to the MCU fails, >there is not signal in H.225.0 to inform the served endpoint A. I don't see the need for an explicit confirmation in all of the cases above. >From an user's point of view, he/she will get from the MC the information of who are on the conference and therefore can derive out of that information which calls have failed. And if the H.323 invitation method is used, the information on whether the invitation succeeds or not is more than explicit. >j) It is the remote endpoint and not the remote endpoint user - >that establishes the call to the MCU. This may result in the remote >endpoint being charged for the call (which may not be acceptable to >the remote endpoint user). The invitation method could be used to avoid that. But, as discussed within our private conversation, the charging issue is an important one and also affects the transfer feature defined in H.450.2. I don't agree that we can resolve the charging issue in just letting the MCU establishing the calls. There are situations in which I don't want to pay for the others just because I'm the one who calls the conference. I believe we need to think and discuss more carefully about that issue and all of its impact, and not only for the conference service but also for the other ones. >k) The MCU does not provide detailed conference notification >information to the endpoints. In H.450.8, conference notification >(conferenceIndication Invoke APDU) is provided to all conference >participants (containing e.g. alias addresses, names, endpoint types, status, etc.). The alias addresses can be requested from the MC using H.245 Terminal ID Request. For the other information, I don't understand why do you need them. What are you going to do with them? And if needed, why can't we add them to the H.245 MC Terminal ID response? >l) A terminal has to ask for receiving a list of conference >participants (H.245 terminalListRequest). In ISDN and PBX networking, >it is the entity containing the conference bridge (i.e. the CUSE) that >provides information about the conference participants. Due to this >different function split interworking with SCN may be more difficult. But it eases the interworking with other H.32x conferencing systems. It is my understanding the H.245 is designed for that aim. >m) Missing signalling elements as identified in different items >above could be added to H.225.0 or H.245. However, this would create >new versions of these standards. The endpoints participating in SS- >CoC would have to be of a certain H.323/H.225.0/H.245 version >(backwards compatibility problem). Still, there would be the problem >of not all endpoints supporting the "Facility re-route to MC" method. See my comments above on the missing items. Also, why is adding something to H.323/H.225/H.245 causing backward compability problem? The items you want to add can be ignored by an endpoint that do not understand them, but we still can convene a conference. >n) With H.450.8, the base standards H.323, H.225.0 and H.245 are not affected. With H.323 version 2 we can already do conferencing, even the way you want to have. We do not need H.450.8. Regards, Linh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- TRUONG Hong Linh hlt(a)zurich.ibm.com IBM Zurich Research Laboratory tel : +41 1 724 8434 CH-8803 Rueschlikon / Switzerland fax : +41 1 724 8955

1 0

Upload APC-1553
by Roni Even 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

MR Okubo, Sorry for the delay. I uploaded the APC-1553 to the pictel incoming folder. Roni Even ********************************************** Roni Even VP Product Marketing Accord Video Telecommunication Email: roni_e(a)accord.co.il Tel: +972-3-9251412 Fax: +972-3-9211571 *************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Sakae OKUBO [SMTP:okubo@GITI.OR.JP] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 6:24 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Documents yet to be uploaded > > Dear Monterey meeting contributors, > > At 13:00 Wednesday (Tokyo time), there are several documents missing > in the > ftp site as in the attached list. As to * marked documents, I received > advice of understandable reasons for delay. > > Please upload (again) your documents if they are listed below. > Apologies in > case I mishandled them. > > Best regards, > > Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) > *********************************************************** > Waseda Research Center > Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) > 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. > 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo > 169-0051 Japan > Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 > Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 > e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp > *********************************************************** > > Documents yet to be uploaded (13:00 Wednesday 10 Febraury, Tokyo) > * to be posted after the ATMF meeting this week > ** to be posted after reflecting the current proposals > *** to be posted Thursday night > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > APC- Source Title > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1496 Editors (D Gurle, G Kimchi) > Editorial changes to H.323 Annex E text > 1501 Editor (J Ott) H.323 Annex F White Paper (for a final review) > 1502 Teles OpenLogicalChannel structures for Annex F > 1510 Madge Networks cryptoTokens in H.225.0 Annex G > *1516 ATMF "H.323 Over ATM Media Transport" specification > *1517 ATMF H.245 codepoint for transport of compressed RTP > over AAL5 > *1518 ATMF GIT for the transporting the portNumber > 1524 BT, Mitel H.245 Pre-Opened Channels > **1544 Editor (G Freundlich) > Draft H.225.0 V3 > ***1547 Chairman, IETF Megaco Working Group > Media Gateway Control Protocol Architecture and > Requirements > 1548 PictureTel Suggested changes to H.341(H.MediaMIB) > 1549 PictureTel, VideoServer > Correction of problems related to MCV in H.230 > and H.243 > 1553 Accord Video Telecommunication > H.323 changes for multi point support > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

apc-1500 uploaded
by Bryan Hill 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Mr. Okubo, I have uploaded apc-1500.zip to the avc-site/incoming directory. Best Regards, Bryan _________________________________________________________ Bryan Hill VideoServer Inc. (781) 505-2159 bhill(a)videoserver.com <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

2 1

SG16 meeting in Santiago
by Sakae OKUBO 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, WP2/16 Rapporteurs has received the following message from Mr. Tosco to confirm the next SG16 meeting being held in Chile during 18-28 May 1999 (17 May is planned for a seminar). FT> I am glad to inform you that on the night of Friday 5 February 1999 FT> Mr. Bigi received the confirmation of the invitation from Chile and FT> the information needed for preparing the convening letter. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0

Documents yet to be uploaded
by Sakae OKUBO 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Dear Monterey meeting contributors, At 13:00 Wednesday (Tokyo time), there are several documents missing in the ftp site as in the attached list. As to * marked documents, I received advice of understandable reasons for delay. Please upload (again) your documents if they are listed below. Apologies in case I mishandled them. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp *********************************************************** Documents yet to be uploaded (13:00 Wednesday 10 Febraury, Tokyo) * to be posted after the ATMF meeting this week ** to be posted after reflecting the current proposals *** to be posted Thursday night ---------------------------------------------------------------------- APC- Source Title ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1496 Editors (D Gurle, G Kimchi) Editorial changes to H.323 Annex E text 1501 Editor (J Ott) H.323 Annex F White Paper (for a final review) 1502 Teles OpenLogicalChannel structures for Annex F 1510 Madge Networks cryptoTokens in H.225.0 Annex G *1516 ATMF "H.323 Over ATM Media Transport" specification *1517 ATMF H.245 codepoint for transport of compressed RTP over AAL5 *1518 ATMF GIT for the transporting the portNumber 1524 BT, Mitel H.245 Pre-Opened Channels **1544 Editor (G Freundlich) Draft H.225.0 V3 ***1547 Chairman, IETF Megaco Working Group Media Gateway Control Protocol Architecture and Requirements 1548 PictureTel Suggested changes to H.341(H.MediaMIB) 1549 PictureTel, VideoServer Correction of problems related to MCV in H.230 and H.243 1553 Accord Video Telecommunication H.323 changes for multi point support ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Maximize Your Website's Traffic!!
by jfillmore23＠MYMAIL.COM 10 Feb '99

10 Feb '99

Maximize your website's traffic. INCREASE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE RANK! If your Web site isn't getting the traffic it should, it's likely that it's not ranked well on the major Internet search engines. According to recent Internet E-commerce studies, over 90% of consumers find the Web sites they visit by using eight major search engines, which are Yahoo!, Excite, AltaVista, Infoseek, Lycos, Web Crawler, HotBot, and Northern Light. If your website isn't located in the top-30 listings of these engines, chances are your site will never be seen. The single most important thing you can do to increase your Web site's traffic is to increase your search engine ranking. ------------- "PUT YOUR NAME IN LIGHTS -- List your business with search engines to make sure potential customers can find it." -- BIZ Excite, PC Computing magazine, November 1998 ------------- THE BASICS: HOW SEARCH ENGINES RANK YOUR SITE When you submit your website to a search engine to be indexed in its database, it sends a "robot" to scan your page. Using complex algorithms to rank your page for keyword relevance, the "robot" determines whether you'll be ranked number 1 or 1,000,000 when potential visitors conduct a search looking for sites like yours. Because the search engines are constantly changing their algorithms to provide users with the best possible search results, there's only one true solution to high search engine placement--us. In short, submission alone isn't enough. *Good search engine ranking* is critical to your site's success. ------------- HERE'S WHAT WE DO -- A UNIQUE, SUCCESSFUL APPROACH In order to counter the ever-changing search engine algorithms, we create an entire series of "entry pages" that are optimized for the search engines--one for every keyword (or keyword phrase) that you provide. Each entry page is optimized for a different set of algorithm variables. In other words, instead of having only *one* page struggling to rank well on all engines, we create separate, search engine-specific entry pages for each keyword. As a result, your pages rank well because they contain information relevant to search queries that are related to your industry. ------------- HOW ENTRY PAGES AFFECT YOUR WEB SITE'S CURRENT STRUCTURE Put simply, they don't. When creating entry pages we *do not* make any changes to the existing structure, content, or functionality of your current site. The entry pages act as a welcome screen for your Web site when people enter from your highly ranked link on the search engine. The pages will say a few introductory words about your site, which are keyword and/or keyword phrase rich, and then provide a link that asks the visitor to "Click Here To Enter," which moves them directly to your current homepage. ------------ HERE'S WHAT WE DON'T *EVER* DO TO HELP YOUR SEARCH ENGINE RANK We *will not* build pages for irrelevant--yet "popular"--keywords. Also, we will *never* "spamdex" pages. "Spamdexing" is "stuffing" a Web page full of words for the search engine's robots. You may have seen spamdexing, which is placing many words in the same text color as a background onto a Web page. Spamdexing will actually get your pages "kicked" from search engine indexes. What we *will* do is simply present very relevant keywords for your site to the search engines in the way that they "like" to see it. ------------- "It's simple: If they can't find you on the search engines, they can't buy from you." -- J. LeRoss, Internet Sales Consultant ------------ HOW WELL DOES THE SERVICE WORK? We'll send you a detailed report of your current search engine ranking on "The Big Six" engines before we begin. Then, once your new entry pages have been indexed, we'll send you a second report showing how they've ranked. Here's a sampling of some results we've acheived for previous clients. (These examples are for competitive keywords--not just obscure words on which no one is conducting searches.) <> 6 top-10 rankings on Infoseek for different relevant keywords <> 18 top-10 rankings across the major search engines <> 3 top-10 rankings on Alta Vista for one keyword <> 16 total *number one* rankings <> 40 top-30 rankings, spread across the different engines. <> 1 to 2 hits per week increased to 500 per day <> 45,000 hits per month grew to 108,000. ------------ HOW MUCH DOES YOUR SERVICE COST? Our basic services start at only $385. The basic package includes: <> Construction of optimized entry pages for up to 20 keywords -- This gives you good "coverage" in your industry <> Submission of the keyword-dense entry pages to the "Big Six" search engines When you contact us, ask about other services we provide that may be able to help your Internet initiatives succeed. We have special services that can be tailored for your specific Internet marketing needs. ------------ HOW DO I GET STARTED? <> Call us--we'll answer any questions you may have and provide a no-cost initial consultation. (888) 283-2050 <> Submit your keywords and/or keyword phrases (up to 20) to us ------------ COMMENTS FROM CLIENTS "Frankly, I'm impressed with the foregoing. So many solicitations from email sources turn out to be a phone line that hooks up to a voice mail system that is designed to give the impression of size, and people who never return phone calls/messages. . . So its a pleasant surprise to find that someone at the other end is really operating as a business!!!" --Alan B. "Incredible! Our site is now receiving more hits in a day than we used to get in an entire month. [My boss] is still eating his words." -- Bob W. "I knew the search engines were a fantastic marketing tool, but my company simply didn't have the time to devote to search engine placement. It has proven to be the best money we've ever spent on marketing." -- Shelley H. "I worked for weeks to get good search engine placement, but I could never crack the top 80 . . . my site was deserted. Within a month [after using your service], I'd had more hits than I'd had in the last year. I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't happened to me." -- Chris L. ------------ OUR JOB: INCREASE YOUR WEB SITE'S RANKING. We can't guarantee that better ranking will increase the number of visitors that "surf" to your Web site. Some highly-ranked websites still don't get much traffic--much depends on your particular industry and choice of keywords. However, high rankings, in most cases, do mean increased Web site traffic. And, we have never failed to increase a client's ranking. Ever. ------------ CONTACT A REPRESENTATIVE: Search Engine Success Group - Call us at: (888) 283-2050 ----------------------- If you've received this message in error--and are not interested in our services--please click reply or call, (888)-248-2236, and we'll remove you from our list.

1 0

APC-1537 and APC-1538 Uploaded
by Tom-PT Taylor 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

APC-1537 and APC-1538 have been uploaded to the Incoming directory. APC-1547 should be available Thursday night. Tom Taylor E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally Tom-PT Taylor) Tel.: +1 613 765 4167 (internally 395-4167) FAX: +1 613 763 7236 (internally 393-7236)

1 0