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

Short Report on SG11 & SG16
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear Tiphoners ITU-SG11 and IMT-2000 ----------------------------------- ITU-SG11 issued a liaison statement which I hand carried to SG-16. I have attached the liaison statementit to this email. The sum of the statement is that SG11 will support and work together with SG16 to support the INAP interworking in the IP network. I had the luck in meeting some Representatives from IMT-2000 and (informal), presented my proposal on support for H.323 mobility and GSM interworking which was well received. ITU-SG16 last stop in standards tour. ---------------------------------------------------- First of all, provide H.323 mobility recommentions, then non-h323 wireless IWF, e.g., GSM Terminal and MAP interworking in the IP network, the proposals where accepted in the TOR. Attached is are the TORs for H.323 mobile and IN on IPT. 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/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: overlapped Sending in h.323
by Sudharsana Krishnan 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Christian The Gatekeeper in my opinion cannot resolve absence of destination alias to any valid address. You will always receive a ARJ. The first ARQ you sent should have had the incomplete dest alias and not NULL. You follow the ARJ with additional ARQs as and when you keep getting additional information about the destination and when finally the gatekeeper can translate this address, it will send you a ACF with either its own Call sigannling address (Gk routed) or any other. For eg. Lets assume Ep1 is a terminal connected to a LAN and supports H.323 with overlapped sending. The User wants to dial 91-80-5598615. As and when the user dials each digit (or a set of digits) it sends out a ARQs to its Gatekeeper with destination alias set to say 9 (first ARQ) , 91 (second ARQ) , and so on. Lets assume that the Ep1's gatekeeper has an entry that maps 91-80 (prefix) to a Gateway's call signalling address, the Gatekeeper sends an ACF for the ARQ that contains "91-80" as the destination alias. The ACf can contain the Gatekeeper's Call Signalling address (if the Gatekeeper routes the call) or the Gateway's Call signalling address, and then the Setup, setup acknowlegde, information message sequence takes over. Hence the setup goes only after the ACF is received and only one ACF is received by Ep1 and not two as you have indicated Hope this helps Regards Sudharshan -----Original Message----- From: Christian Geng <christian.geng(a)detewe.de> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 1:29 PM Subject: overlapped Sending in h.323 >Dear Sir or Madam, > >I try to be H.323 conform in the folowing: >I want to support overlap sending within gatekeeper-routed calls. >My session starts with a ARQ from enpoint_1 to GK without any >destination alias. After receaving ACF endpoint_1 sends SETUP without >any destination alias, but with canQverlapSend is TRUE. GK will answer >with a SETUP ACKNOWLEDGE. Endpoint_1 will then send digit by digit of >alias in destinationInfo field of ARQs. By each sending the total >cumulative addressing information is transmitted in destinationInfo >field. GK responds each time with an ARJ until recept full destination >alias, in this case it answers with ACF. I hope I am right until now? >Reading clause 8.1.12 of ITUs H.323 I thought endpoint_1 shall then send >a SETUP message to GK? This will be the second SETUP, because enpoint_1 >allready did. Can't GK send now a SETUP to endpoint_2 with the >ip-address belonging to the destination alias put in the >destCallSignalAddress field? > >I thank you much for an answer to solv my problem. > >Cincerely > >Christian Geng >

1 0

overlapped Sending in h.323
by Christian Geng 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear Sir or Madam, I try to be H.323 conform in the folowing: I want to support overlap sending within gatekeeper-routed calls. My session starts with a ARQ from enpoint_1 to GK without any destination alias. After receaving ACF endpoint_1 sends SETUP without any destination alias, but with canQverlapSend is TRUE. GK will answer with a SETUP ACKNOWLEDGE. Endpoint_1 will then send digit by digit of alias in destinationInfo field of ARQs. By each sending the total cumulative addressing information is transmitted in destinationInfo field. GK responds each time with an ARJ until recept full destination alias, in this case it answers with ACF. I hope I am right until now? Reading clause 8.1.12 of ITUs H.323 I thought endpoint_1 shall then send a SETUP message to GK? This will be the second SETUP, because enpoint_1 allready did. Can't GK send now a SETUP to endpoint_2 with the ip-address belonging to the destination alias put in the destCallSignalAddress field? I thank you much for an answer to solv my problem. Cincerely Christian Geng

1 0

Berlin TDs
by Noriko Hosokawa 09 Aug '99

09 Aug '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, Berlin TDs have been uploaded to the /9908_Ber directory. Please note that TD-11 and TD-45 are vacant. 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

Final TDs for the report of the meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 08 Aug '99

08 Aug '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, I have placed a zipped file at the Incoming directory of the PictureTel ftp site: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Berlin_report.zip or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/Incoming/Berlin_report.zip which contains the following files: TD-20 Q12 report TD-21 Q13 report TD-22 Q14 report TD-23 Report - General These and other materials will be integrated into a complete report as APC-1644 soon. 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

FW: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg
by Nancy-M Greene 08 Aug '99

08 Aug '99

I've uploaded to the nortel ftp site (see URL below) TD-44, with diff marks against TD-8 (which is the file referenced in the internet-draft <draft-ietf-megaco-protocol-03.txt>), and made the following summary of the changes made in Berlin. If any of you think I have mis-represented the outcome, or if I have forgotten anything, please speak up on the Megaco mailing list. I hope that with a few days discussion, we will have a draft that both the IETF and the ITU agree on, and can move towards going for Last Call. Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com > ---------- > From: Greene, Nancy-M [CAR:5N10:EXCH] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 1999 10:20 PM > To: 'megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com' > Subject: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg > > ITU-T SG16 Q12-14 held a Rapporteurs' meeting in Berlin Aug 2-6/99. They > reviewed the current draft of the Megaco/H.248 protocol contained in > <draft-ietf-megaco-protocol-03.txt>, and produced a document containing > all changes they propose to make. > > Much of the text as it appears in <draft-ietf-megaco-protocol-03.txt> has > been accepted. All the suggested additions and clarifications need > discussion on the Megaco mailing list in order to continue the ITU/IETF > cooperation, and to get the protocol ready for Megaco WG last call. > > This document was accepted by SG16 in Berlin as the current draft of > H.248. The document is available at > ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/Wash99 - with filenames > MegacoH248v9Chgs.doc > MegacoH248v9Chgs.pdf > MegacoH248v9Chgsdoc.zip > MegacoH248v9Chgspdf.zip > > The Word document has diff marks against MegacoHGCPv9itu.doc, and NOTE > that the itu macro is on - switch it to the ietf macro to see the ietf > text. > If you have any trouble getting/reading these files, please let me know > (ngreene(a)nortelnetworks.com). > > After discussion on the Megaco mailing list, the editors of Megaco/H.248 > (Brian Rosen (brosen(a)eng.fore.com) as the IETF editor, and John Segers > (jsegers(a)lucent.com) as the ITU-T editor) will incorporate appropriate > changes and then (I expect) issue it as a new internet-draft. > > ****IF ANY POINTS NEED DISCUSSION, please send each > ****point in a separate email, and, if applicable, propose > ****exact text changes you would make. > > Below is a summary of these changes, technical and editorial, as well as a > few questions. Points marked with "***" require work. > > Technical additions/changes/issues > ---------------------------------------------------- > T1) Section 6.2.2.2: Intercept: added a topology descriptor as a context > parameter, to allow operator intercept, wiretapping - satisfies the > regulatory requirement of only allowing the tapping of one side. Also, > removed InterceptToken from ABNF - this is done using context parameters > instead. ***Need to review this topology descriptor proposal to see > whether it works, and whether it could be covered already in another way, > using the muxing descriptor for example. > > T2) Section 6.2.3.3: TerminationIds - Changed "arbitrary string" to > "arbitrary schema" so it is not tied to a text encoding (there may be a > better word). Note that there is NO special meaning about the / character. > Added "In a text encoding of this protocol". Added sentence > "TerminationIDs of physical Terminations are provisioned in the Media > Gateway". Re-included text describing use of hierarchical terminationIds. > > T3) Section 6.2.3.5: ***Make sure the parameter tables from the Santiago > text go in an annex as parameters of one of the basic packages. These > parameters would be included in the LocalDescriptor. > > T4) Section 6.2.3.5: ***There is still an issue with tx and rx descriptor > names: when you do an add on the RTP termination, in the response you will > get params for RxDescriptor (local information). BUT it is also a transmit > descriptor. So, there is still a wish to call rxDescriptor the > localDescriptor, and txDescriptor the remoteDescriptor. Note added. > > T5) Section 6.2.3.6: ***Issue with ROOT TerminationId - It seems a bit of > a kludge to use a special ROOT terminationId to refer to the entire MG - > can we make TerminationId optional in AuditValue, AuditCapability? then we > would not need ROOT. Check effect to ServiceChange. > > T6) Section 6.3.2.11: ***Need to add a way to configure the level of > embedding of signals/events descriptor, and MGC needs to be able to find > out the level of embedding. > > T7) Section 6.3.2.11: Re-added the sentence saying at least one level of > embedding should be supported. (Why was it removed?) > > T8) Sectio 6.3.2.15: DigitMapDescriptor - Added a start timer, ***still > need to add text for naming/use of transient digit maps. ***Also need to > make sure that if the MG fails to load a digit map, event notification > continues anyway. > > T9) Section 6.3.2.15: Re-added some of the text in digitMapDescriptor on > wildcarding. > > T10) After Section 6.3.3.8: Put/Delete removed - they are for future > consideration. > > T11) Section 6.3.2.10, 6.3.4, Annex A, B, C: Text vs binary: Annex A added > for modified ASN.1 that describes the protocol syntax, Annex B for the > ABNF, and the translation mechanism, and Annex C for the binary and the > binary translation mechanism. > > Agreements: ABNF remains normative. ASN.1 and compiler to compile into the > ABNF already written, will also be added as normative when they are > available. Sentence added: " This compiler is a living tool that will > likely be enhanced over time. To start, this tool should be tested to > verify that syntax can be compiled to the ABNF defined below. > > 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." > > T12) Section 6.3.2.10, Annex D: A new proposal has been added for native > encoding of StreamDescriptors (SDP codepoint is still there). Changes made > to ABNF, reference made to SDP RFC, and to native encoding. ***Media > descriptor parameter and value tables put into Annex D - this annex still > needs work. ***Need to add in the sentence: "It is recommended that the > native encoding method for stream descriptors be used when encoding is > binary, and the SDP method be used when the protocol encoding is > text-based." > > T13) Section 6.4.1, 6.4.3.1,6.4.3.2, 6.4.3.3: Simplify transaction > semantics - changes to text and to ABNF (Annex B) made: removed the > concept of rollback on transactions - the document did not define how you > could roll back commands that actually cause physical changes on the MG, > e.g., sending of a signal, subtracting a termination from a context. > > It was decided that in fact, all a transaction does, is ensure that > commands occur in a particular order, and that no commands after a command > that fails, gets executed. In a TransactionAccept, need to say what a > response is - added sentence on this. In a TransactionReject, the command > that failed has error code, all the rest of the commands are not executed. > > T14) Section 6.4.1: Transaction figure - renamed "action" to "contextId". > > T15) Section 6.5: ***An example use case for text telephony will be added > (need to move all examples to an informative appendix). > > T16) Section 6.6: Transport: Proposed text added - it does not change > current transport functionality in draft-ietf-megaco-protocol-03.txt. > ***Editorial changes to this section will be suggested. > > T17) Section 6.7: Security section - some clarifications to text added - > you do not have to implement AH-in-Megaco/H.248 if you have IPSEC. Only > ONE of the two schemes is used at one time - if IPSEC is on both MGC and > MG, it is used, otherwise AH-in-Megaco/H.248 is used. Proposed text: "The > MG need only support IPSEC if it is capable. Otherwise it must support > AH-within-Megaco/H.248." ***Section too long, needs rewording. > > T18) Section 6.7: *** Security: request clarification on how the MGC knows > what the security mechanism is that the MG is using, and vice versa. > > T19) Section 7: Packages: a proposal for the writing of base packages, > along with proposals for the base packages will be turned into an > internet-draft and submitted for comment. > > T20) Section 7.2: Text added for IANA registration of packages. ***Text > still needs work. Agreed that IANA is the place to register ALL packages. > Suggestion that procedures should say that for ITU-T packages, we would > standardize the first few characters of the package name, and that a > public document describing the packages are not necessarily required. > > T21) Annex B: ***AuditCapabilities - need to allow multiple copies of > descriptors to be returned. ABNF needs to be updated. > > T22) Annex D, SDP: ***Need to be able to pass a QoS parameter to the MG. > (Note: Place to define this would be in the Package that defines > parameters to the LocalDescriptor. Also needed in SDP.) > > > > Editorial changes > ------------------------- > E1) Section 1: Have an ITU scope, and an IETF scope. Text that is there is > the ITU scope. > > E2) Architecture: Change architecture section back to Santiago determined > version of the text, and move it to H.323, instead of having it as an > annex to H.248. If architecture is moved out, all definitions (section 3) > that pertain to the architecture section and not the protocol, for > example, GK, can be deleted. (Note - there is still an issue of where the > architecture section will live, but in any case, it will NOT be in the > IETF version of the protocol). > > E3) ***Section 3: Add definition for stream, signal, event (not done yet). > > E4) Requirements section (old section 6) is removed. No need to reference > requirements doc in this document. > > E5) Section 6.1:Removed reference to "interface A". > > E6) Section 6.2.1, 6.2.3.1: Terminations Basic Concepts, and Overview - > some wording changes. For example, in the case of intercept for > wiretapping, a third termination in a context does not make the context a > conference bridge. Also conference replaced by association. > > E7) ***Section 6.2.2.1: Context general - wording changes, still needs > work. > > E8) Section 6.2.3.1 Change Audit to AuditValue just before Termination > Dynamics section. A few other changes to paragraph describing muxing. > > E9) section 6.2.3.5, 6.2.3.8: The "Support" columns in several tables have > been removed (not relevant now). This makes it look like those entire > tables have been changed - in fact it is just that a column has been > removed. > > E10) Section 6.3.2.12: Clarifications made to definition of "brief": "no > timeout value is needed". > > E11) Section 6.3.3: Clarified text in Command API describing the syntax > used. > > E12) Section 6.3.3.1: Add command - MediaDescriptor now marked as optional > in the text. > > E13) section 6.2.3.5: Some clarifications made in the section on > Termination Properties and Descriptors. > > E14) Section 6.2.3.7: Added section for templates, and marked it for > further study. > > E15) Section 6.2.3.8: Added section for scripting descriptors (marked for > further study). Make sure we can add them later to the protocol, e.g. make > > sure it can be used as an alternative way of describing digit maps. > > E16) Section 6.3.2.9: LocalDescriptor - mode not defined well - sentence > removed. > > E17) Section 6.3.2.11: ***Question: does loop in eventBuffer mean that > event is returned each time it occurs without having to resend an > EventsDescriptor - need to make text clearer. > > E18) Section 6.3.5: ***Need to renumber error codes (Need to discuss this > - may be better to leave them with the numbering they have.) > > E19) Section 7.2: ***Verify that all places that require IANA registration > in one place are grouped - error codes, packages, - (Events and signals do > NOT need to be registered - they are defined in packages). > > > > Questions > -------------- > Q1) What is the media type parameter of a termination? Is it in the stream > descriptor? or is it at the termination level? In describing the > muxDescriptor, it is stated that the media type of a termination included > in a mux is set to mux... > > Q2) Check semantics in embedded signals - what happens if one of the > signals fails - is the next signal applied or is it an error? > > Q3) Check that you can put two signals on a line and they are mixed. > > Q4) How does MGC to find out if MG supports digit maps? By just sending > them, and the MG ignores them if it wants to? > -------------- > > Nancy > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com >

1 0

I will be back after September 7th
by Romeo.Zwart＠ATT.COM 08 Aug '99

08 Aug '99

Hi, I am currently on vacation. I will be back on September 7th. For any business that needs to be handled directly, you'd best send a message to The ICoE team: icoe(a)icoe.att.com Kind regards, Romeo Zwart AT&T Internetworking Center of Expertise

1 0

SG16 meeting on 30 September 1999
by Sakae OKUBO 08 Aug '99

08 Aug '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, The following information on the subject matter is available at the ITU web site: Collective letter http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com16/coll/006_ww7.doc Circular http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com16/circ/207_ww7.doc Please note that the deadline for submitting Delayed Contributions is 20 September 1999. 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

question belonging to h.245
by Christian Geng 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

Dear Sir or Madame, In the ITU-T Recommendation H.225.0 I found about h245Address: used in Alerting-UUIE, Call Proceeding-UUIE, Progress-UUIE, or Connect-UUIE: "This is a specific transport address on which the called endpoint or gatekeeper handling the call would like to establish H.245 signalling." used in Setup-UUIE: "This is a specific transport address on which the calling endpoint or gatekeeper handling the call would like to establish the H.245 signalling. This should only be provided by the sender if it is capable of handling H.245 procedures before receiving a CONNECT on the Call Signalling channel." My question is: I want to start H.245-Signaling after recept of Connect-message. Receiving the Connect-message, I get the transport address on which the called endpoint or gatekeeper handling the call would like to establish H.245 signalling. How can H.245-signaling run, if no h.245-address for calling endpoint or gatekeeper was defined before. I thought it has been done in Setup-UUIE. But what happens, if the sender of Setup-UUIE is not capable of handling H.245 procedures before receiving a CONNECT on the Call Signalling channel? Please can you help me to understand? I am looking specially for Gatekeeper-routet calls. Thank you very much. Cincerely Christian geng

1 0

Re: Article on H.323 Supplementary Services
by Paul Long 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

IEEE members (only) can access the article online at http://207.127.135.8/ci1/private/1999/jul/Korpi.html Paul Long Smith Micro Software, inc. -----Original Message----- From: Kaynam Hedayat [SMTP:Kaynam_Hedayat@PICTEL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 6:52 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com; h323implementors(a)imtc.org Subject: Article on H.323 Supplementary Services Hello everyone, I would like to bring your attention to a very good article by Vineet Kumar and Markku Korpi on H.323 Supplementary Services. The article appears in the July issue of the IEEE Communications Magazine with the title "Supplementary Services in the H.323 IP Telephony Network". Regards, Kaynam Hedayat ------------------------------------------------------------------------- for list subscription instructions, send email to h323implementors-request(a)imtc.org with text "info"

5 4