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

Re: H.245v6 ASN.1 tree?
by mike.nilsson＠BT.COM 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Paul, The only change to the syntax for V6 that I am aware of is the change given below (from TD69/PLEN of Santiago), where ** is used to label additions. MediaTransportType ::=CHOICE { ip-UDP NULL, ip-TCP NULL, atm-AAL5-UNIDIR NULL, -- virtual circuits used as unidirectional atm-AAL5-BIDIR NULL, -- virtual circuits used as bidirectional ..., ** atm-AAL5-compressed SEQUENCE ** { ** variable-delta BOOLEAN , ** ... ** } } At the Berlin meeting there were discussion regarding the T.38 fax codepoints - we had received a liaison from SG8 that showed that there were differences between T.38 Annex B and H.245 V5. We replied to them suggesting a syntax addition to H.245 (V6) to allow the additional fields in T.38 Annex B to be signalled. I am assuming that we will not include these changes in H.245 until we have received a response from SG8. I have not made a new syntax - it did not seem worth the effort - and I am not aware of anyone else doing so. Best regards Mike ********************************************************************** * Mike Nilsson Tel: +44 1473 645413 * * Applications Technology Group Fax: +44 1473 645011 * * Internet and Multimedia Applications Email: mike.nilsson(a)bt.com * * BT Advanced Communications Technology Centre [B54 Room 94] * * Adastral Park * * Martlesham Heath * * Ipswich IP5 3RE * * UK * ********************************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [SMTP:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 5:04 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.245v6 ASN.1 tree? > > Has a complete ASN.1 syntax been put together for H.245v6, the version > used > by H.323v3? If so, where I can find it online? I guess it would be H.245v5 > with the Santiago TDs applied. I can combine them on my own, but I'd like > something with which to corroborate my result. > > Paul Long > Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

Berlin meeting report APC-1644
by Sakae OKUBO 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Dear Q12-14/16 experts, Draft meeting report of the Berlin meeting has been placed at the PictureTel ftp site as: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/APC-1644.zip or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/Incoming/APC-1644.zip I have edited this document by integrating TD-20, 21, 22, 23 and other relevant materials. Though there are still some points needing confirmation of Q13 and Q14 Rapporteurs (as indicated with yellow marks), please review this draft, list of participants in particular, and return your corrections in two weeks time - by 26 August. 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

Fwd: TD-27a
by Sakae OKUBO 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Dear Q12-14/16 experts, In response to Mr. Coldren's request as attached, TD-27a.zip has been placed at the /9908_Ber directory. TD-27.zip there will be removed. The convention for the file name is as follows: TD-nn.zip - initial submission TD-nna.zip - first revision TD-nnb.zip - second revision etc. whatever name the file had when posted. 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 *********************************************************** Posted-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:59:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:00:47 -0700 From: "Rex Coldren" <coldrenr(a)agcs.com> Reply-To: coldrenr(a)agcs.com Organization: AG Communication Systems X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: okubo(a)giti.or.jp CC: pauljones(a)ties.itu.int Subject: TD-27a Mr. Okubo, Please accept TD-27a to the Berlin directory. The abstract of this TD follows: Following are modifications to TD-27 to address issues raised when the TD was discussed in the Friday morning meeting of SG16 in Berlin. The modifications are all intended to show that APC-1581, as amended by TD-27, should be included in H.323 v4 and H.225 v4 rather than in v3. APC-1581 and TD27 show changes against the v3 specifications since the v4 specs were not available at the time of writing of these contributions Thank you, Rex Coldren

1 0

H.245v6 ASN.1 tree?
by Paul Long 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Has a complete ASN.1 syntax been put together for H.245v6, the version used by H.323v3? If so, where I can find it online? I guess it would be H.245v5 with the Santiago TDs applied. I can combine them on my own, but I'd like something with which to corroborate my result. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

Full Network Harmonization
by Edgar Martinez [1] 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

Dear All I have updated TD-09 network picture on figure 3 to include some of the ideas that Tiphon and other groups are working on. 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/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: is cross-posting really necessary?
by Edgar Martinez [1] 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

Dear Nancy, I too support Christian, the MEGACO list is a heavy hitter when it comes to an overload of messages in a mail box. Plus not all issues are common, and one needs only a shap shot to get the idea where it is going. The issues with Sigtan would have been better understood if we had the same service. Thank you, Ed "Callaghan, Robert" wrote: > Nancy, > > I thank Christian for advising the SG16 mailing list as to the MEGACO > activities. I don't monitor the MEGACO list because I simply do not have > time for all the detailed work. However, I do believe that SG16 people > should be kept informed as to the general activities that are performed in > the name of SG16. > > Abrogating the coding agreement from Berlin because it is inconvenient > should not be keep hidden from the SG16 group. The AD/Chair may determine > consensus for IETF, but not for ITU. In ITU, consensus is determined by the > Rapporteur, and that is not Tom Taylor. > > The agreed proposal for dual coding standards was an attempt to finesse the > unresovable disagreement over the coding standards. Abrogating this > agreement may only extend the discussion. This can only impede a JOINT > standard. > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Business Communication Systems > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy-M Greene [mailto:ngreene@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:03 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: is cross-posting really necessary? > > Christian Groves writes: > > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > > > Christian > > > Christian, > I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation > remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive > two of everything. > > If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can > either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list > archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. > > The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com > > To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to > listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with > > subscribe megaco > > in the msg body (no subject needed). > > Nancy > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com -- 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

Re: is cross-posting really necessary?
by Callaghan, Robert 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Nancy, I thank Christian for advising the SG16 mailing list as to the MEGACO activities. I don't monitor the MEGACO list because I simply do not have time for all the detailed work. However, I do believe that SG16 people should be kept informed as to the general activities that are performed in the name of SG16. Abrogating the coding agreement from Berlin because it is inconvenient should not be keep hidden from the SG16 group. The AD/Chair may determine consensus for IETF, but not for ITU. In ITU, consensus is determined by the Rapporteur, and that is not Tom Taylor. The agreed proposal for dual coding standards was an attempt to finesse the unresovable disagreement over the coding standards. Abrogating this agreement may only extend the discussion. This can only impede a JOINT standard. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Business Communication Systems Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Nancy-M Greene [mailto:ngreene@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:03 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: is cross-posting really necessary? Christian Groves writes: > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > Christian > Christian, I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive two of everything. If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with subscribe megaco in the msg body (no subject needed). Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com

1 0

is cross-posting really necessary?
by Nancy-M Greene 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Christian Groves writes: > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > Christian > Christian, I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive two of everything. If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with subscribe megaco in the msg body (no subject needed). Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg)]
by Christian Groves 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

FYI for SG16, a part of a thread on the outcome of Berlin. As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com Christian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:47:52 +0200 From: Chip Sharp <chsharp(a)CISCO.COM> Reply-To: Chip Sharp <chsharp(a)CISCO.COM> To: MEGACO(a)STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM References: <4.1.19990809163617.03ef1760(a)dogwood.cisco.com><F033F6FEF3F1D111BD150000F8CD1431025B5F9E(a)zcard007.ca.norte l.com> At 05:09 PM 8/9/99 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote: >At 05:56 PM 8/9/99 +0200, Chip Sharp wrote: >>At 10:20 PM 8/8/99 -0400, Nancy-M Greene wrote: >> >> >It is expected that industry forums would define profile for use of H.248 >> >and this would include whether text vs binary is used, as well as which >> >packages would be used, etc. In Section 6.3.4, sentences added: "MGCs should >> >support both encoding formats. MGs may support both formats." >> > >>...snip... >> >>I propose that megaco should continue with its Oslo agreement and >>concentrate on the text encoding. Therefore, the IETF document would >>contain the text version of the protocol but not the binary version. Since >>the parameter encoding is so tightly bound with the encoding, the IETF >>version would specify the SDP encoding of parameters but not the other >>proposal. > >As has been noted here several times, MEGACO did not in any way agree to >use text. A coin was flipped at an ad hoc meeting and the issue was not >discussed during the main meeting. As Tom has pointed out, it is up to the megaco WG chair to declare consensus. I should say "Oslo proposal". I can say for sure that megaco has not agreed to do both a binary and text encoding. I am making a proposal. I would actually like to hear more people venture their opinion about this other than the 5 to 10 people that seem to create most of the mail on this list. >One thing we agreed on at least from the AD/Chair level was that MEGACO >would pen the requirements in cooperation with SG16 and SG16 would pen the >protocol in cooperation with MEGACO. I see no reason we can't continue with >that method. I believe what Scott sent to the list was: "The gist of the proposal is that the two groups would agree to some form of double veto process where by both groups have to agree to the final wording for the protocol before either group would publish it." I haven't heard anything further. This may seem rather abrupt after the SG16 meeting, but it has to be addressed as to whether or not megaco will agree to both a binary and text encoding. I'd rather have the discussion sooner than later. So the question is, does megaco agree with the SG16 proposal to have both a binary and text encoding of the protocol as described in the draft Nancy mentioned? Chip -------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp Consulting Engineering Cisco Systems Telco Bio-region Reality - Love it or Leave it. --------------------------------------------------

1 0

RAS to INAP
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear All, Attached is part of a document I presented in TIPHON 13 and the Santiago ITU-SG16 meeting to support INAP interworking in H.323. Which help to start the groups (TIPHON and SG16), to look at INAP-IPT interworking. The reason I sending this out I promise some reps. from TSG11 to send the Mapping of the RAS to INAP messages as a start. 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/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0