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

H.gcp/megaco news
by Glen Freundlich 30 Jun '99

30 Jun '99

As we mentioned during the Santiago meeting, the IETF meeting is the week of July 11. During this meeting, there will be continued work on H.gcp/megaco as is the normal case at IETF meetings. However, there will be no special Q.14 rapporteur session. Nonetheless, it would be appropriate for folks interested in H.gcp to participate in the IETF megaco work, either in the meeting or over the megaco mail reflector. Regards, Glen -- Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA

1 0

H.225 V3 for decision in September
by Glen Freundlich 30 Jun '99

30 Jun '99

Colleagues, I've placed 2 files in the Incoming directory of the pictel ftp site: h225v301.zip - the determined H.225 V3 from the Santiago meeting with change marks showing the additions and modifications to V2 to reach V3 h225v3dec.zip - the determined H.225 V3 with changes accepted and ASN.1 cleaned up and reformatted (but I've not yet had a chance to compile the ASN.1) As you may have seen in the mail from Paul Jones, we need to deliver the files on June 30. I know this is not much warning, but I would really appreciate any comments or corrections folks might have - a sanity check from another set of eyes is always helpful. Regards, Glen -- Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA

1 0

Re: MGCP reference (was Re: Megaco/H.gcp conference call)
by Nancy-M Greene 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

Chip, you are right, the name Telcordia/Level 3/RSL COM/Vertical MGCP is not convenient. Christian has already made the same comment you have. I said in reply to him, and to the list, that I did make an error in adding Cisco to the qualifier for MGCP. Since then, I refer to the new Megaco protocol as the Megaco protocol, or the Megaco/H.gcp protocol, and to MGCP as MGCP. Since a new version of MGCP has come out, version 1, (draft-huitema-megaco-mgcp-v1-00.txt), this distinction is even more necessary. It makes sense that megaco is part of the file name, because there are parts of MGCP that still need to be turned into RFCs for packages for the Megaco/H.gcp protocol, but it means the new Megaco/H.gcp protocol can never really be called MGCP - it is too confusing. It would be good at some point to pull the packages out of MGCP to stand alone as a separate document for Megaco. And perhaps the UDP + timers part of MGCP so that it can stand beside TUDP, MDTP, and TCP as alternatives for Megaco transport. Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com > ---------- > From: Chip Sharp[SMTP:chsharp@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:53 PM > To: Greene, Nancy-M [CAR:5N10:EXCH]; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com; > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > Subject: MGCP reference (was Re: Megaco/H.gcp conference call) > > Once or twice is a mistake. When the mistake is continually repeated I > wonder... > > Cisco is NOT an author of MGCP. Referring to MGCP as > "Telcordia/Cisco MGCP" denigrates the hard work of the many people that > actually did author the draft as well as the many people and companies > that > contributed. > Maybe it isn't convenient to call it Telcordia/Level 3/RSL COM/Vertical/ > MGCP? > > Chip > > At 06:44 PM 6/16/99 -0400, Nancy-M Greene wrote: > ...snip... > >mechanism. We need to choose one. There are two proposals on the table: > >1) the UDP + timers method in the Telcordia/Cisco MGCP - > >draft-huitema-megaco-mgcp-v0r1-05.txt, and > ...snip... > -------------------------------------------------- > Chip Sharp voice: +1 (919) 851-2085 > Cisco Systems Consulting Eng. - Telco > Reality - Love it or Leave it. > -------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Joint Session In Oslo
by Tom-PT Taylor 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

I have the possibility of a meeting room which would hold 40 people on Tuesday morning at the Oslo IETF meeting. Could we make creative use of that, either by holding a syntax design team meeting or by holding a meeting specializing in H.GCP topics of particular interest to SG 16? Note that a full Megaco meeting is typically 225 or so people. Tom Taylor Advisor -- IPConnect Standards E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor) Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

1 0

MGCP reference (was Re: Megaco/H.gcp conference call)
by Chip Sharp 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

Once or twice is a mistake. When the mistake is continually repeated I wonder... Cisco is NOT an author of MGCP. Referring to MGCP as "Telcordia/Cisco MGCP" denigrates the hard work of the many people that actually did author the draft as well as the many people and companies that contributed. Maybe it isn't convenient to call it Telcordia/Level 3/RSL COM/Vertical/ MGCP? Chip At 06:44 PM 6/16/99 -0400, Nancy-M Greene wrote: ...snip... >mechanism. We need to choose one. There are two proposals on the table: >1) the UDP + timers method in the Telcordia/Cisco MGCP - >draft-huitema-megaco-mgcp-v0r1-05.txt, and ...snip... -------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp voice: +1 (919) 851-2085 Cisco Systems Consulting Eng. - Telco Reality - Love it or Leave it. --------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
by Francois Audet 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

I'd support this as well: some additional text regarding backward compatibility (use of GIT instead of B-HLI) is required. Along the lines of what was done for H.310 which went throught the same change. François Audet > Hi everyone, > > One of the proposals we are planning to bring to the Berlin > meeting is for > modifications to Annex C. If the additional text is approved > in Berlin will it > be possible to add it to H.323 V3? This is quite important > text since it deals > with backward compatibility of Annex C in H.323 V3 and H.323 V2. > > Regards, > Kaynam Hedayat

1 0

Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
by Kaynam Hedayat 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

Hi everyone, One of the proposals we are planning to bring to the Berlin meeting is for modifications to Annex C. If the additional text is approved in Berlin will it be possible to add it to H.323 V3? This is quite important text since it deals with backward compatibility of Annex C in H.323 V3 and H.323 V2. Regards, Kaynam Hedayat "Paul E. Jones" <paul.jones(a)TIES.ITU.INT> on 06/28/99 08:20:51 PM Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com cc: (bcc: Kaynam Hedayat/PicTel) Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September Folks, We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine version 4 in February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that people can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU by 30 June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for decision in Septemer.) This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document that was determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the document for any errors or omissions. The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since version 2. Please direct any comments on the document to me. The document can be found here: ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc Best Regards, Paul E. Jones DataBeam Corporation

2 1

Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
by Pete Cordell 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

One issue I was discussing with my BT colleagues was installing an open framework for extensibility and feature negotiation into H.323v3. The motivation for this was to enable transport of SS7, but also other protocols such as DPNSS, (is CAS a digital one?) and so on. If we were to go ahead I guess we would have presented something in Berlin. Given that September is fast approaching waiting for such a scheme to transport things like SS7 does not seem too onerous. Unfortunately my colleagues are out this week, but I will attach the latest text so that people can have early sight of it. Regards, Pete ============================================= Pete Cordell pete(a)tech-know-ware.com ============================================= -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones <paul.jones(a)TIES.ITU.INT> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Date: 29 June 1999 01:25 Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September >Folks, > >We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine version 4 in >February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that people >can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU by 30 >June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for decision >in Septemer.) > >This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document that was >determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the document >for any errors or omissions. > >The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since version 2. > >Please direct any comments on the document to me. > >The document can be found here: > >ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc > >Best Regards, >Paul E. Jones >DataBeam Corporation >

2 1

Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
by Chris Purvis 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

Roni, The reason for the addition of this text to H.323v3 was the death of what was formerly known as H.450.8 (SS-CoC, Conference out of Consultation), which I will refer to hereafter as H.450.CoC for convenience. H.450.CoC described an alternative method for setting up conferences out of consultation which, if decided, would have left us with alternative, incompatible methods of achieving the same feature. I wrote documents on the subject for the Monterey meeting (one APC, one TD, if I remember rightly), and a revised version for Santiago, explaining how the behaviour required by H.450.CoC could be achieved without it. It was felt that setting out the procedure in a standard was a useful thing to do, but that H.450.CoC was unnecessarily heavyweight. The natural conclusion of that was to write up the procedures allowed by earlier versions of the standard explicitly in H.323v3. Hence: 1. It IS a minor change, because it doesn't actually change anything (beyond the addition of a single releaseCompleteReason) - it merely sets out how protocol already in existence can be used to achieve a particular aim. 2. Although the text was not agreed in Monterey as part of H.323v3, its basis was discussed at other points in the Monterey meeting as well as at Santiago. 3. It must have some use in the standard, to clear up misconceptions. The writers of H.450.CoC (who are extremely familiar with the H.323 family of standards) obviously felt H.450.CoC was necessary (or they wouldn't have put in the significant effort of writing it!) - whereas you're saying that the text being added was already part of the protocol (with which I agree). I find it hard to see your argument as self-consistent incidentally - if, as you say, the added text is "just a procedure that is already part of the previous text" (with which I agree), then surely as such it constitutes a minor change!? 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: Roni Even [mailto:Roni_e@ACCORD.CO.IL] > Sent: 29 June 1999 8:24 > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September > > > Hi, > As far as I see in the Santiago meeting summary the decision was to > decide H.323V3 in 2/00. Where will we decide on 9.99 I did not see any > meeting scheduled. A lot of text was added during the Santiago meeting > about Conference out of Consultation which I see as just a procedure > that already is part of the previous text and I cannot see why it was > added at the first place. I intend to submit an APC about this for the > Berlin meeting. I think that adding two pages of text to the document > that was agreed in Monterey is not a minor change. > > ********************************************** > 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: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:21 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September > > > > Folks, > > > > We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine > version 4 > > in > > February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that > > people > > can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU > > by 30 > > June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for > > decision > > in Septemer.) > > > > This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document > > that was > > determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the > > document > > for any errors or omissions. > > > > The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since > > version 2. > > > > Please direct any comments on the document to me. > > > > The document can be found here: > > > > ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul E. Jones > > DataBeam Corporation >

1 0

Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
by Roni Even 29 Jun '99

29 Jun '99

Hi, As far as I see in the Santiago meeting summary the decision was to decide H.323V3 in 2/00. Where will we decide on 9.99 I did not see any meeting scheduled. A lot of text was added during the Santiago meeting about Conference out of Consultation which I see as just a procedure that already is part of the previous text and I cannot see why it was added at the first place. I intend to submit an APC about this for the Berlin meeting. I think that adding two pages of text to the document that was agreed in Monterey is not a minor change. ********************************************** 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: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:21 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September > > Folks, > > We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine version 4 > in > February. Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that > people > can review the document. This document must be delivered to the ITU > by 30 > June 1999. (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for > decision > in Septemer.) > > This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document > that was > determined in Santiago. Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the > document > for any errors or omissions. > > The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since > version 2. > > Please direct any comments on the document to me. > > The document can be found here: > > ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc > > Best Regards, > Paul E. Jones > DataBeam Corporation

1 0