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

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Alexander Rovny 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

Maybe the idea was as following. The Endpoint itself may avoid parsing or somehow handling any prefixes in the dialed number but may just pass the E164 alias as it is to its Gatekeeper. The latter may avoid replacing the prefixes with ones specific to the destination (say) gateway but may translate the alias into a partyNumber one and return it in ACF. So E164 is understood as a locally valid alias, and partyNumber as an alias to be propagated worldwide. Alexander Rovny MD Information Systems

1 0

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Chris Purvis 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

Paul, My feeling would be that as an endpoint making calls, you will probably only be dealing with dialled numbers, and will therefore use the e164 field. When you're registering with a gatekeeper, however, you may need to do different. For example, I have here an internal phone number within Madge (31359), and a DDI number (+44 1753 661 359). I could see a sensible way of modelling that situation as being for my endpoint to register a PrivatePartyNumber of the former and a PublicPartyNumber of that latter. The gatekeeper then needs to cope with the difference between the two, and who dials what to get hold of you. If you use only the e164 number field, you either register one or the other (and expect the gatekeeper to translate), or register both. The advantage of differentiating them in some way (either using typed numbers or letting the gatekeeper "invent" another number for you) is that (particularly in the world of H.225.0 Annex G) the gatekeeper will probably only publicise public numbers to third parties (after all, a four or five digit number can't be expected to identify individuals uniquely if the scope is larger than a single organisation). If, then, you accept that such differentiation is useful, that means you're asking extra intelligence within your gatekeeper. It may make it "easier" for gatekeepers to have that extra intelligence if you register typed, rather than dialled, numbers. Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. ENGLAND Phone: +44 1753 661 359 email: cpurvis(a)madge.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] > Sent: 14 April 1999 6:57 > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases > > > Okay, but what is the status of the e164 alias? For example, > if a user enters > a "telephone number" at a v1 EP, it must be provided as an > e164 alias. Will > all other entities continue to recognize this as a telephone > number? Now if a > user does the same thing at a v2 EP, can the number be > provided as an e164 > alias _or_ a partyNumber? Will all entities continue to > support both types of > aliases, or is e164 deprecated as of v2? As an EP vendor, I'd > really hate to > require the user to indicate whether the number they just > entered is an "e164 > alias" or a "party number." Yucko... Maybe, just to be safe, > the number should > be provided in both forms, but I think some entities get confused when > confronted with multiple aliases, or at least the semantics > of such a thing is > ambiguous. > > Paul Long > Smith Micro Software, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert > [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:14 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases > > Paul, > > The E164 alias, in use, is the user dialed number not > a structured > E.164 > address. The partyNumber is the structured E.164 or > Private Number. > > Bob > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Information & Communication Networks > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases > > > What is the difference between an e164 alias and a > partyNumber alias? > Was > e164 > found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? > Are we supposed > to > stop > using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use? > > Paul Long > Smith Micro Software, Inc. >

1 0

Re: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose?
by Paul Long 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

I agree. H.324 does not have the cache and is not experiencing the same intense interest of H.323, but it still lives, and the number of vendors is stable. Plus, across the PSTN, it blows the doors off H.323. :-) Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [SMTP:epachg@EPA.ERICSSON.SE] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:23 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose? G'Day Ami and Tom, There has been some initial disucssion in the 3rd generation mobile projects (ie.UMTS) regarding the usage of H.324 therefore I think its too early to preclude H.324 from MEGACOP discussion. So I think that it should definately be supported in the scope of MEGACOP. Cheers, Christian Ami Amir wrote: > > Tom, > > Without going into specific product plans, it is clear that for deployments > that want to support both voice AND H.320 - deployment of "video only" > gateways does not make any sense, and the same gateway needs to support > both functions. > > So, if voice will opt for decomposition, it should find a way to > accommodate the video/data side. BTW - H.324 "died" because there was no > real application/network that supported it well. It seems to me that in the > new networks (e.g. ADSL or Cable or wireless local loop) it might still be > useful. Should we support it in Megacop? > > Ami > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom-PT Taylor [SMTP:taylor@nortelnetworks.com] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 9:57 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose? > > This is addressed to the experts of Study Group 16, but has impact on the > priorities of work both for Megaco and for H.GCP. The question, which I > raised obliquely in a previous exchange on co-location of H.245 signalling > with the Media Gateway function, is whether any vendor will actually create > a decomposed H.320-to-H.323 Gateway. If not, we can stop worrying about > how > to accommodate H.320 in the Media Gateway control protocol. > > Tom Taylor > E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally Tom-PT Taylor) > Tel.: +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396-1490) > FAX: same number by prior arrangement (manual answer).

1 0

H.GCP draft uploaded
by Bryan Hill 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Mr. Okubo, Please find a version of HGCP.doc and HGCP.zip that I have uploaded into the ptel incoming site. These are drafts of the contribution I am preparing for Santiago. Best Regards, Bryan Hill _________________________________________________________ Bryan Hill VideoServer Inc. (781) 505-2159 bhill(a)videoserver.com <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

2 1

Re: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose?
by Ami Amir 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Tom, Without going into specific product plans, it is clear that for deployments that want to support both voice AND H.320 - deployment of "video only" gateways does not make any sense, and the same gateway needs to support both functions. So, if voice will opt for decomposition, it should find a way to accommodate the video/data side. BTW - H.324 "died" because there was no real application/network that supported it well. It seems to me that in the new networks (e.g. ADSL or Cable or wireless local loop) it might still be useful. Should we support it in Megacop? Ami -----Original Message----- From: Tom-PT Taylor [SMTP:taylor@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 9:57 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose? This is addressed to the experts of Study Group 16, but has impact on the priorities of work both for Megaco and for H.GCP. The question, which I raised obliquely in a previous exchange on co-location of H.245 signalling with the Media Gateway function, is whether any vendor will actually create a decomposed H.320-to-H.323 Gateway. If not, we can stop worrying about how to accommodate H.320 in the Media Gateway control protocol. Tom Taylor E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally Tom-PT Taylor) Tel.: +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396-1490) FAX: same number by prior arrangement (manual answer).

2 1

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Callaghan, Robert 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Paul, It may be proper for to have the terminal parse the user dialed number and place the structured results in the partyNumber. And then to also place the user dialed number in the E164 address. This would give the best possible results. However, H.323 should be modified to require the use of partyNumber first, if present, and use E164 alias. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:57 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases Okay, but what is the status of the e164 alias? For example, if a user enters a "telephone number" at a v1 EP, it must be provided as an e164 alias. Will all other entities continue to recognize this as a telephone number? Now if a user does the same thing at a v2 EP, can the number be provided as an e164 alias _or_ a partyNumber? Will all entities continue to support both types of aliases, or is e164 deprecated as of v2? As an EP vendor, I'd really hate to require the user to indicate whether the number they just entered is an "e164 alias" or a "party number." Yucko... Maybe, just to be safe, the number should be provided in both forms, but I think some entities get confused when confronted with multiple aliases, or at least the semantics of such a thing is ambiguous. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:14 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases Paul, The E164 alias, in use, is the user dialed number not a structured E.164 address. The partyNumber is the structured E.164 or Private Number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases What is the difference between an e164 alias and a partyNumber alias? Was e164 found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? Are we supposed to stop using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use? Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

2 1

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Paul Long 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Okay, but what is the status of the e164 alias? For example, if a user enters a "telephone number" at a v1 EP, it must be provided as an e164 alias. Will all other entities continue to recognize this as a telephone number? Now if a user does the same thing at a v2 EP, can the number be provided as an e164 alias _or_ a partyNumber? Will all entities continue to support both types of aliases, or is e164 deprecated as of v2? As an EP vendor, I'd really hate to require the user to indicate whether the number they just entered is an "e164 alias" or a "party number." Yucko... Maybe, just to be safe, the number should be provided in both forms, but I think some entities get confused when confronted with multiple aliases, or at least the semantics of such a thing is ambiguous. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:14 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases Paul, The E164 alias, in use, is the user dialed number not a structured E.164 address. The partyNumber is the structured E.164 or Private Number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases What is the difference between an e164 alias and a partyNumber alias? Was e164 found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? Are we supposed to stop using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use? Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

WG: H.323 Implementers Guide Edits
by Karl.Klaghofer＠ICN.SIEMENS.DE 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Jim, I think we have found an error in the Implementer's Guide. The change for Section 7.2.2 of H.323 has the following new paragraph apparently added to 7.2.2 although this paragraph is already part of the H.323v2 Standard within this clause 7.2.2. Was the intention to copy this standard paragraph to the new section 7.2.2.1 "use of lightweight RRQ" ? - then we can delete the para within clause 7.2.2 in the impl guide and just keep the para below 7.2.2.1. ...." An endpoint's registration with a Gatekeeper may have a finite life. An endpoint may request a timeToLive in the RRQ message to the Gatekeeper. The Gatekeeper may respond with an RCF containing the same timeToLive or a shorter timeToLive. After this time, the registration shall be expired. The timeToLive is expressed in seconds. Prior to the expiration time, the endpoint may send an RRQ message having the keepAlive bit set. The keep alive RRQ may include a minimum amount of information as described in H.225.0. The keep alive RRQ shall reset the time to live timer in the Gatekeeper, allowing the registration to be extended. After the expiration time, the endpoint must re-register with a Gatekeeper using a full RRQ message. ...." Regards, Karl Klaghofer, Siemens AG karl.klaghofer(a)icn.siemens.de > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jim Toga [SMTP:jim.toga@metatel.com] > Gesendet am: Freitag, 9. April 1999 15:50 > An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Betreff: H.323 Implementers Guide Edits > > Greetings, > > After some delay, I have completed the edits coming out of the Monterey > meeting for the Implementers Guide. Please review the changes and verify > that everything is as expected. > > I have incorporated (I believel) all of the relevent text mentioned in the > Meeting report namely: > APCs 1511,1512, 1520, 1522, 1533, 1506, and TDs 10, 14, 33. > > If I do not have any comments back by 4/16/99 then I will integrate these > changes with the complete document in preparation for the Chile meeting. > > Best Regards, > jimt.

2 1

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Callaghan, Robert 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Santo, This is an interesting problem. However, as the E164 alias is a user dialed number, it will include such thing as "011" for international calls. However, if the call uses a foreign gateway, the gateway will not understand "011" as it is expecting "00" to indicate an international call so it will treat "0" as a national call and try to send the call to "11+". The structured values in partyNumber indication the unique number without any identification or routing information. Therefore a number indicated as an international number is valid anywhere in the world. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Santo Wiryaman [mailto:swiryaman@VIDEOSERVER.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:13 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases I like to see e164 alias being used. In order for an EP to send the new V2 aliases, it has to know that the destination is a V2 or higher. How does the caller know the callee is V2 or higher? Any thoughts? ---------------------------------------- Santo Wiryaman VideoServer, Inc. Phone:+1.781.505.2348 Fax:+1.781.505.2101 email:swiryaman@videoserver.com http://www.videoserver.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [SMTP:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases > > What is the difference between an e164 alias and a partyNumber alias? Was > e164 > found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? Are we supposed to > stop > using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use? > > Paul Long > Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases
by Callaghan, Robert 14 Apr '99

14 Apr '99

Paul, The E164 alias, in use, is the user dialed number not a structured E.164 address. The partyNumber is the structured E.164 or Private Number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases What is the difference between an e164 alias and a partyNumber alias? Was e164 found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? Are we supposed to stop using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use? Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0