October 2000 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H.323 QOS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 02 Nov '00

02 Nov '00

Hi, Mike: I wonder when do you think that you will be agreeing with something after so many emails? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:40 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: H.323 QOS >We will go step-by-step. I am happy to agree to this once we know where we are trying to get to. We also need to scope out the problem space before we start taking steps. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: As I said, we will only work in the framework of H.323 (i.e., Q.13/16). I understand other questions like Q.14 as well and I am a part of it. We will go step-by-step. We worked for H.323 in Q.13/16 before we developing Q.14/16 where the interworking issues like H.248 GWs have been addressed. In the same token, we are also addressing the H.323 mobility. First, we are developing the H.323 mobility model in Q.13/16. Then we will address the interoperability between the PSTN and packet switching network mobility where H.248 will be one of the items, and these items may fall into other questions including Q.14/16. As I told, I have objections when TIPHON model does NOT say which items they need to address in which questions or which study groups. The confusion comes when they "dump" everything in one question. As I told before, no one is saying against TIPHON because we all know this: There are items that are also being addressed by us in the ITU-T in general. Hope this will clarify. Let us NOT create confusions mixing things. Let us focus on our work while inputs from all ITU-T SGs, TIPHON, IETF, IMTC, and other forums are also welcome. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:56 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi Radhika, >We MUST not speak about TIPHON models. It confuses people because it exceeds >the charter of Q.13/16. we do not like to address issues related to H.248 >now (it is a part of Q.14/16). We will go step-by-step. I am only referring to the TIPHON model because you did! Having said that there is nothing confusing in the TIPHON model for the participants in Q13 - my experience is they are pretty smart people. I think if we can pick up useful ideas from the work of other groups we should be open to that. >Let us wear the "HAT" of H.323 in Q.13/16, not beyond that. The work of Q.13 and 14 seems pretty seamless to me. That's why the two questions are often run as one. We should not be too blinkered in our approach or we will definitely end up with something that is unuseable. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 3:44 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: I understand what you are saying. I took IETF model as example how works can be divided when TIPHON model is considered in the context of SIP. In SG16 of Q.13, the charter is clear: It is H.323 that can be used over any "packet" networks (i.e., transport independent). In this context, please H.323 specs: H.323, H.225.0, H.225.0 Annex G, and H.245. So, our reference is: To extend H.323 to "express" QOS (application layer) considering audio codecs, video codecs, data (T.120). Please see Appendix of H.323 Annex N. We will go from there (you can see the frame work of H.225.0 Annex G - how simple it is - we will follow the similar model). This is as simple as stated above. We MUST not speak about TIPHON models. It confuses people because it exceeds the charter of Q.13/16. we do not like to address issues related to H.248 now (it is a part of Q.14/16). We will go step-by-step. Let us wear the "HAT" of H.323 in Q.13/16, not beyond that. By the way, we are also doing the same thing in H.323 mobility: To extend H.323 to support mobility in the application layer. Hope this helps. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 9:56 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi Radhika, The problem is I don't see a framework in SG16 for how H.323 will be used in the real world to solve the general end to end QoS problem. It's no good putting fields in protocols without some idea of how they are going to be used in practice. This doesn't mean you want to tie down the implementer to go down one particular route but you have to have an architecture in mind when you develop a protocol. The IETFs architecture is clear - it is the Internet. I would submit that this is not necessarily what we are doing in SG16. Let's define the framework of the problem we are going to solve. Much of it has been covered in this recent thread. But it needs documenting and general agreement. TIPHON is developing a framework for VoIP. SG16 is developing a suite of protocols for VoIP. Both need an agreed architecture. The early discussions on architecture in TIPHON lead to gateway decomposition and the birth of H.248. The logical conclusion of this work has lead to the present TIPHON architecture. Just as the gateway decomposition exercise lead to a set of requirements and architecture for H.248, the latest TIPHON architecture leads to a set of requirements for QoS control and a QoS architecture. See DTS 5003. I want to get general agreement on the problem we are solving and the roadmap of how we are going to get there. Then we can start on the ASN.1. We should not be considering SIP/SDP in SG16 - neither of these protocols are needed if we do our job right with H.323. Policy in the IETF is exclusively transport domain policy. Again it has nothing to do with the policies we may adopt on application level QoS. As far as I understand the MCI work this is all about the Internet and makes no recognition of H.323 or other applications. So lets not get lead astray by orthogonal activities to those we are engaged on. Our job is application level QoS and defining the services we need from the transport domain to deliver it. We are not solving problems in the transport domain. But we can draw up a set of requirements for an interface and feed this to the IETF. Let's get our problem statement clear and our TORs and architecture documented and agreed. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Our aim is to extend H.323 for supporting QOS. The framework is already there. Please see H.323 and H.225.0 Annex G specs how the general framework is done in the context of H.323. Again, we are dealing with Q.13/16 and TIPHON exceeds the charter of Q.13/16. It goes beyond H.323 and involves almost all SGs of ITU-T and IETF that are dealing with QOS. I understand what TIPHON is trying to do and TIPHON is just NOT limited to Q.13/16. The same problem has been in the IETF when TIPHON presented its QOS model for extending SIP. It appears that it exceeds the charter of SIP. Please note that people are NOT saying that TIPHON's work is NOT needed. All they are saying: Let us divide the work in different items and each item will have its place in the corresponding WGs. For example, policy will be addressed in the Policy WG, if any particular messages in SIP needs to be extended to support QOS following the SIP charter that work may be addressed in the SIP WG, if any particular item needs to extend in SDP to support QOS that work needs to be done in the MMUSIC. >From end-to-end call point of view, people will need SIP, SDP, Policy, Security, Billing, firewalls, NATs, and others. when the standards in all areas are done, people just use them. This is the second step. I have also been working with Joon Maeng of VTEL in this area because Joon submitted a contribution in Q.13/16 last Feb'99 meeting. We are waiting to complete the H.323 QOS work first. You can also see an IETF contribution from MCI WorldCom how the interdomain QOS can be used by SIP using Policy, Security, etc. This work is dependent on the standard work of Policy WG, and others. Again, this contribution for supporting interdomain QOS by SIP using Policy, etc. does NOT need any additional standard work is SIP, it is, rather, an implementation that shows how an end-to-end call can use all those standards including QOS that have been developed in different WGs. Appendix of H.323 QOS Annex N has the general framework. Now you can go through those items and please let us know where you like to see changes and why. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 7:51 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, My aim here is to come up with a general QoS framework in H.323 that will handle all these situatioins not just special cases. I think we agree on this. I would be reluctant to solve a special case without an idea of how we are going to solve the general case. This can only lead to backward compatibility issues. I believe the TIPHON approach is totally general. However I agree it need some new interfaces defining. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 8:21 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Yes, you are right that NATs and firewalls problems are yet to be solved with complete satisfaction from address translation point of view. This may be a separate work item all by itself. I do not think that we will bring H.245 to address those problems. In fact, I have not seen any proposal in that direction. We have to separate our works step by step. I would not like to include those general problems as a part of H.323 OQS for now. Let a separate group or annexes deal with those special problems so that we can use those solutions for QOS as well, if needed. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:13 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi Radhika, This model is only valid I think when you have end to end address transparency as in the Internet. When different transport network domains are present this doesn't necessarily work. NATs and firewalls will mean that IP addresses and port numbers in different domains will be different for the same media stream. Terminating IP and port numbers may well be different at each end of the call. This is one reason why H.323 will not work through firewalls. To fix this gatekeepers will have to perform a mediating function with the H.323 domain and the transport domains. This mediation will not be via H.245. SIP has the same problems by the way. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 2:15 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Just for information, H.245 does many things. As I indicated earlier, one of the most important things of H.245 is the opening and closing of the logical channels that binds the application layer's logical connection abstractions to all transport network connections (e.g., ATM, etc). So, this is the fundamental mission of H.245 to provide the continuity between the application layer and the lower layer in a transport independent way using the universal abstractions. These abstractions can be for anything that we can think of. Hope this helps. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 8:22 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi Radhika, This use of H.245 as a bridging mechanism is where I have difficulties. The original intenmt behind H.245 was media control and negociation. Transport mechanisms should not be signalled in H.245 or elsewhere in the application. This is entirely the business of the transport network provider. Unfortunately I will not be present in Portland, however, I am happy to continue this productive dialogue on the list with a view to providing a new draft in the next few weeks. Regards, Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:29 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: I guess that we have agreement on the fundamental basis. However, I have problems when you translate this in signaling terms. As I have explained earlier that we are following the exiting framework of H.323 which is the application layer, and H.323 is transported over one or different transport networks. H.323 uses H.245 as a common mechanism that helps to transports the abstraction of H.323 application signaling messages over any networks (e.g., IP, ATM, etc). You may look to the H.245 spec very carefully instead of making any generalized statement. H.245 provides the bridging between the application layer and transport layer mechanism. For example, H.245's OLC abstraction is the link for ATM network layer logical connection as well as for other transport networks. In the same token, H.323 QOS abstraction may also provide link to the lower transport layer QOS signaling mechanisms (e.g., RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, ATM QOS, etc), if needed. H.323 DOES support RSVP and ATM QOS now. Please also see my reply embedded in you email [RRR]. Again, I would suggest to bring contributions explaining the solution and we will go from there. In absence of your contributions, I would suggest to provide comments on Appendix of H.323 QOS Annex N. We can then answer your questions step by step. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:56 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, >However, this is only good for the single network. For example, >end-to-end RSVP or end-to-end ATM QOS. >If there are multiple networks or if a single IP network implements RSVP in >one domain, DiffServ in another domain, and MPLS in another domain, there is >no transparent H.323 QOS signaling mechanism that is universal on end-to-end >basis so that it can be mapped over the RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, ATM QOS, etc >transparently This is the nub of the problem and I am afraid why this approach is flawed. [RRR] I am NOT afraid of anything. Rather we are solving all problems including the above as well. No one should be afraid of anything. The only thing that I can suggest is to bring contributions. We will go from there. Please remember that H.323 QOS supports RSVP and ATM QOS and we MUST provide backward compatibility. We will be waiting to see contributions from you to prove your points whether things are flawed or not. Please read Appnedix of H.323 QOS Annex N very carefully along with exiting H.323 and H.245 standard how they support H.323 QOS for RSVP and ATM QOS. >We have shown how the H.323 QOS can >be mapped over the RSVP, DiffServ, ATM QOS, etc. if needed. This mapping must be done within the transport plane not by the application. All the application needs to specify are the entries in your Table 1. i.e delay, jitter. packet loss and peak bit rate (the latter parameter for policy enforcement and resource reservation). [RRR] Please see my generalized clarification how H.245 provides translation between H.323 signaling schemes over the lower layer transport networks (e.g., IP, ATM, etc). The mechanism already exists in H.323 and this is the beauty of the transport independent H.323 application. Now there are two separate things: one is what the calling side of the application demands and what the called side of the application agrees on. This is called negotiation capability (e.g., choosing a particular type codec that has a certain bandwidth, jitter, and other requirements). How the choosing criteria is determined, the H.323 application is NOT aware of those things. It may depend on many criteria (e.g., policy, bandwidth, type of network [e.g., IP, ATM], pricing, security, personal preferences, etc.), but H.323 is not involved. These are separate issues and we are NOT addressing at the H.323 layer. I am still not clkear how you propose to signal these parameters to the transport plane. [RRR] It is NOT new in H.323, and this mechanism already exits. Please see the support of RSVP and ATM QOS in H.323/H.245 spec. We are not inventing anything NEW here. Then, if you read Appendix of H.323 QOS Annex N very carefully, you will find how it happening (whether you call it as transport plane or something else, it does not matter). I think we are getting loser to a common understanding. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:37 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Bob: I agree completely agree with you. In fact, we are all trying to achieve the same goal. For example, H.323 does supports QOS today via H.245. You can easily see that RSVP and ATM QOS are supported using H.245. The beauty of this approach is that H.245 is still transport independent. All we have done here is: the abstraction of H.245 has been used to support the RSVP and ATM QOS to implement the network layer QOS. However, this is only good for the single network. For example, end-to-end RSVP or end-to-end ATM QOS. If there are multiple networks or if a single IP network implements RSVP in one domain, DiffServ in another domain, and MPLS in another domain, there is no transparent H.323 QOS signaling mechanism that is universal on end-to-end basis so that it can be mapped over the RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, ATM QOS, etc transparently. In Appendix of H.323 Annex N, we have done the same. We have the abstraction of H.323 QOS in the application layer. We have shown how the H.323 QOS can be mapped over the RSVP, DiffServ, ATM QOS, etc. if needed. It also provides the backward compatibility with the existing H.323 standard. However, we have done only for the pre-call setup signaling part. We have not done the call setup part yet. In the call setup part, we will include H.245 in a similar way what H.323 is supporting RSVP and ATM QOS today in a monolithic network. I appreciate your email. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 9:08 AM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO > Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' > Subject: RE: H.323 QOS > > Roy, > > In my view, the network, as a minimum, needs only provide transport. > H.323 > is an application using this transport and is not different from any other > application being transported. Any application may request a desired > quality of service that the network may grant based on policies, service > level agreements, and availability. Each data connection used by an > application may request a different QOS. Most likely H.323 is such an > application as needing an enhanced QOS. This simple case should work. > This > is all that is required. > > In addition to transport, the network may optionally provide other > additional services. These services may include application layer > routing. > These optional services should be configured and indicated independently > from the basic transport QOS. > > It is correct that H.323, as an application, is (mostly) transport > independent. However, the interface between the application and the > transport layer is not transport independent. The interface specification > used to request a given QOS is totally dependant on the standards body > that > specified the transport layer; and for this there has been little or no > coordination. > > Because transport QOS over IP is based on IETF specifications, it is > necessary that the interface used to request a given QOS conform to the > appropriate IETF specification. If such an interface specification is not > available, that input might be provided to the appropriate IETF body as to > the requirements. > > I can see the endpoints negotiating the desired QOS base on need, price, > and > other considerations. For me, this is the limit to the application layer > involvement in QOS negotiation. At this point, the application > negotiations > with the transport provider as to the desired and available QOS. It is up > to the transport provider to arrange for the end-to-end QOS. (Again, it > is > not necessary for the transport network to know that H.323 is involved in > the transported data. In fact it may be encrypted in order to mask the > presence of voice transport.) > > For me, this is simple. > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Enterprise Networks > Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:59 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: H.323 QOS > > Hi, Mike: > > Let me try again. > > What is the reference point of H.323 QOS? Is it not H.323? If it is so, > what > do we mean by H.323? > > The answer is: Audio (different codecs), Video (different codecs), and > Data > (T.120 applications) that are used by H.323. > > What are the QOS/performance characteristics of audio, video, and data > from > the application point of view that is generated by audio codecs, video > codecs, and data (T.120) applications? > > These QOS/performance characteristics come from the SOURCE codecs and data > applications. Per transport independent H.323 specifications, an enduser > express their QOS/performance requirements on end-to-end basis purely from > application point of view irrespective of the transport network (e.g., IP, > ATM, etc.). > > Moreover, H.323 is meant for the packet network, not for any > circuit-switched network like PSTN or ISDN. > > Let us NOT go beyond this before we start debating transport layer QOS or > service provider requirements. These are NOT the concern of H.323. H.323 > is > the transport independent application. > > H.323v2/v3/v4 has also provided mechanisms how RSVP and ATM QOS can be > used > for H.323 audio, video, and data. So, H.323 QOS that will be defined in > H.323 Annex N MUST provide mapping for the backward compatibility. It is a > requirement that MUST be met per the norm of ITU-T. > > So, what is left for mapping? Mapping is simply a by-product of the above > requirement. Mapping is simply a table, nothing else. > > Did I miss anything? > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:19 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323 QOS > > > Radhika, > > Thanks for the input which I welcome as I will unfortunately not be > present > at Portland. > > Let me ask a few questions and make a few comments hopefully with the > intent > of opening up the debate. > > 1. I am not sure I understand your concept of a mapping table between the > H.323 QOS and the transport layer QoS. My understanding is that QoS is on > three levels: > > a) that specified from a service point of view between the user and > service > provider (e.g PSTN quality, conference quality etc) This is the domain of > the speech experts and can be characterised by Listener Speech Quaklity > (MOS), end to end delay, and absolute category rating, R. > > b) application specific parameters, (e.g. equipment delays, codec choice > and performance, codec frame size, packetisation arrangements, jitter > buffer > design, overall packet loss etc.) Optimisation of all these will > determine > what can be delivered in a). > > c) transport parameters for a given choice of application parameters. > This > boils down only to three parameters as far as I cna see: tranport network > delay, packet delay variation in the transport network and packet loss in > the transport network. Again these parameters will determine the results > in > a) for a given choice of the parameters in b). These parameters are > generic > from the perspective of the transport network. i.e the transport network > does not need to know the details of the application. > > So the sequence of cause and effect and control is: > > a) User requests QoS class from service provider, > b) Service provider determines application specific parameters in > conjunction with users equipment and other service providers, > c) Service provider requests required delay, delay variation and packet > loss from network provider. > > I see no need for mapping here. The only QoS info flows within the > application are specific to the application and those between the > application (service provider) and the transport network are generic. i.e. > delay, jitter and packet loss. Have I missed something? > > 2. The issue of bit rate and media stream statistics I think need to be > decoupled from QoS. These are specified to enable optimisation of > resources > within the transport network. They have no QoS significance from an > application point of view. i.e the apllication does not care about the > media stream bit rate and statistics but the transport network provider > does > as it eats up his resource. They may be used for policy enforcement > however > in the transport network so they do need to be agreed between service > provider and network operator. i.e the network operator agrees to provide > a > given QoS level (delay, jitter, packet loss) provided the media properties > are within an agreed profile (bit rate, flow statistics). > > 3. The next point is how can the service provider know the statistics of > a > particular VBR stream? These can only be specified over a large number of > similar calls and will depend, for instance, on who is speaking, the > nature > of the speech interaction etc etc. They can only be measured not > calculated. The service provider is in no better position to measure > these > than the transport network operator and, in fact, where no gateways are > involved, may not be able to. On the other hand the class of signal would > have to be signalled to the network operator for him to be able to > distinguish which class a particular measurement belonged to. e.g > voice/speech/data, codec type, conference, multicast etc. So I see no > purpose in trying to exchange statistics between the service provider > (application) and transport operator. I think peak bit rate is all that > can > be meaningfully excanged. The specification of media class is however > perhaps worth exploring. > > 4. The controlled category has always puzzled me. I only see two > possibilities. Either the requested QoS level is guaranteed (on a > statistical basis e.g 95% of all connections over a specified period) or > not > guaranteed. Is your controlled category a way of saying guaranteed, not > to > 95% but to some lower figure? If you can't put a percentage on it then it > seems it is plain and simple not guaranteed. Anything that is not > guaranteed to some specified statistical level is best effort and you > can't > say anything more about it. So I only see two categories here. > > In summary, I think we need to do three things in Annex N. > > a) Figure out the QoS information to be exchanged within the Application > between service providers and end users. This will go in H.225.0 and > H.245. > > b) Figure out how we are going to signal QoS and media information between > the application (service providers) and transport domains (IP or ATM > networks etc). The info is basically delay, jitter, packet loss > requirements and peak bit rate. We need a protocol for this. > > c) we need to work out the interactions between the application QoS > signal > flows and the application/transport signal flows. I don't think we need > worry about how the transport network mechanisms assure the requested QoS > paramerters. RSVP/Intserv, Diffserv, MPLS, ATM, over provisioning are all > possibilities. > > Would welcome comments and views on the above. > > Mike > > > Mike Buckley > +44-1457-877718 (T) > +44-1457-877721 (F) > mikebuckley(a)44comms.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:15 PM > Subject: H.323 QOS > > > Hi, Mike and All: > > It is time to discuss about H.323 QOS. > > I believe that we have an agreement as follows: > > · H.323 QOS MUST be backward compatible to support RSVP and ATM QOS as it > exists for H.323v2/v3/v4 > · Like H.323 spec, the application level H.323 QOS MUST be independent of > the transport layer QOS and should support all transport networks (e.g., > IP, > ATM) > · A mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QOS (e.g., > IP QOS [DiffServ, RSVP, etc.], ATM QOS [CBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VBR, ABR, etc.]) > should be provided. > > From the H.323 multimedia application point of view, there are following > performance parameters can be used to characterize the traffic > characteristics: > > · Bitrate characteristics: Peak bit rate (PBR) or peak rate (PR), > Sustained > bit rate (SBR) or average rate (AR), minimum bit rate (MBR) or minimum > rate > (MR), and mean bust size (MBS) > · Delay and loss characteristics: end-to-end delay (EED) or delay, > end-to-end delay variation (EEDV) or delay variation (DV), and > bit-error-rate (BER) or (packet) loss rate (LR) > > We can now form a table with all parameters as follows: > > Table 1: H.323 Multimedia Application Performance Matrix > Audio (codecs)--- Video (codecs)--- Data > (T.120) > PBR/PR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > SBR/AR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > MBR/MR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > MBS Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > EED/Delay Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > EEDV/DV Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > BER/LR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value > > From the above table we will have the opportunity to choose each parameter > for each medium (audio, video, data) that makes sense from the > application's > and enduser's point of view. Again, these parameters can be specified as > follows: > > · Guaranteed: The value specified for each parameter MUST be guaranteed. > · Controlled: The value specified for each parameter MAY be satisfied as > far > as practicable (possibly with certain range), but definitely NOT > guaranteed. > · Best effort: No commitment will be made. > > Now each medium (e.g., audio, video, or data) will have different > categories > of performance matrix depending on its selection criteria and this can > also > be mapped to RSVP, ATM QOS, and others, if needed. > > Once we agree on this format, the next step is to create H.323 QOS > signaling > messages. > > This is my input for discussion in the upcoming Portland Q.13 meeting for > H.323 QOS. > > I like to see the comments from other members as well. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > +1 732 420 1580 > rrroy(a)att.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

3 2

APC-2003
by BOUGANT Fran�ois FTRD/DAC/ISS 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Dear all, Please find in attachment the following contribution : Source : France Telecom Title : Mobility management protocol in H.323 Annex H Best regards. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- François BOUGANT & France Télécom R&D FTR&D/DAC/ACE e-mail : francois.bougant(a)francetelecom.fr 38, 40 rue du Général Leclerc Téléphone : (33) 1 45 29 51 84 92794 Issy Moulineaux Cedex 9 Télécopie : (33) 1 46 29 31 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

1 0

RE: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect
by Danail Kirov 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

It seems bullet-prone to me. If the called endpoint may choose to repeat the exact same fastStart element in all subsequent message up to and including Connect, then The calling endpoint may choose to expect the fastStart in Connect only. At the same time the called endpoint is not required to send fastStart in Connect and may choose not to send fastStart in Connect and as a result the calling endpoint may never get fastStart in Connect and fast connect may fail miserably. Isn't it clear that those are two mutually exclusive choices? 1. The called endpoint is required to include the fastStart element in only one Q.931 message. 2. The called endpoint is required to repeat the exact same fastStart element in all subsequent message up to and including Connect. There is no middle ground and no mix and matches are allowed, if we want to have bulletproof fast connect procedure. Any correction in the standard must make it clear and definite that it is either choice 1, or choice 2, but not both at the same time. Danail Kirov -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:47 AM To: 'Paul E. Jones'; 'Anatoli Levine'; Paul Long Cc: h323implementors Subject: RE: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect I have not problem with your proposed addition. It seems bullet-proof to me. -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:34 PM To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Anatoli Levine'; Paul Long Cc: h323implementors Subject: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect Francois, You proposed the following textual changes (see enclosed in <NEW></NEW>): _____ The called endpoint accepts a proposed channel by returning the corresponding OpenLogicalChannel structure in a Q.931 message sent in response to Setup, up to and including Connect. <NEW>A called endpoint may choose to repeat the exact same fastStart element in all subsequent message up to and including Connect. Calling endpoints should react to the first fastStart element received in a response message to the Setup message and ignore any eventual subsequent fastStart elements.</NEW> _____ I don't have any problem inserting this text into H.323, but I do fear that people will rely on such repetitions and they may not happen. Indeed, I would state that an H.323 entity shall not expect more than one response to Fast Connect. I don't disagree with this text, because I always encourage developers to be very tolerant of "noise" on the wire-- and I consider repetitive data like this to be "noise". :-) You call these religious arguments... they might be, but we really need closure on this issue. Unlike the MGCP vs H.248 debates, the world can live with two media gateway control protocols. However, I don't want to see vendors split on implementation issues relating to H.323: that's not good for anybody at all. If we don't come to an agreement on it here and now, you know that we'll be correcting it as a customer fumes over interoperability issues later on. I'd much rather see us agree to something than to bring grief upon our customers. Can everyone live with the above textual changes? Do we need more? Is it well understood that there may be one and only one response containing fastStart? Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Francois <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> Audet To: 'Anatoli <mailto:alevine@RADVISION.COM> Levine' Cc: h323implementors(a)imtc.org <mailto:h323implementors@imtc.org> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: RE: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect > I disagree with your claim that the stack which sends > multiple Fast Start > responses (as long as they are identical) is not compliant > with the standard - > none of the citations you used claim that ONLY ONE Q.931 > message can carry Fast > Start information. I believe that the wording should be > changed to explicitly > allow Fast Start elements to be sent in every Q.931 message > up to Connect as > long as information in those messages stays the same. Correct. That was my proposal too. I didn't keep the exact wording I had. Paul Jones probably still has it. These religious arguments over "one" or "many" are getting nowhere. It seems that sending one and sending many are a fait accomplit. Not much we can do about it except tell the implementor about it.

1 0

RE: Fast Connect - Switching to H.245 procedure / UII vs. Keypad IE
by Francois Audet 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Use H.245 tunnelling. Also, H.323v4 will explain how to do TCS and M/S at the same time as fastStart during call setup so that they be completed extremely rapidly. See 8.2.3 of the H.323v4 draft. If you need H.323v2 or v3, you can still use H.245 tunnelling, and initiate TCS and M/S from the called end as soon as possible (right after sending fastStart) > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Davidson [mailto:dan.davidson@commatch.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 1:09 AM > To: 'Paul E. Jones' > Cc: h323implementors > Subject: RE: Fast Connect - Switching to H.245 procedure / > UII vs. Keypad IE > > > (This mail is a fusion of two previously separated streams: > Fast Connect - Switching to H.245 procedure and UII vs. Keypad IE) > > Paul, > All this would mean that when using fast connect to > set-up a call against > and IVR (i.e. calls in which DTMF are sent immediately after > call set-up), > H.245 UII > messages shall be used for DTMF transport and the first H.245 > UII message > has to be preceded by Capability Exchange and Master Slave > Determination > procedures. > Isn't this slow ( and I'm not counting in all the TCP > connection set-up when > tunnelling is not supported)? > > Isn't there a faster, standardised, way to convey DTMF when using fast > connect ? > > Thanks, > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:59 AM > To: Dan Davidson; h323implementors(a)imtc.org > Subject: Re: UII vs. Keypad IE > > Dan, > > An endpoint that communicates with a SET device may certainly > do this-- and > must if they expect to get DTMF digits from a SET device. > However, two > non-SET devices should not use this method. As far as I > know, there is no > means of signaling to the other endpoint that you have the > "capability" of > using the keypad IE. That means that any non-SET device must use UII. > > That might be something worth considering as a means of > removing further > dependencies on H.245. We could very easily add such support > and signal it > within H.225.0. However, I have seen no proposals for that. > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:59 AM > To: Dan Davidson; h323implementors(a)imtc.org > Subject: Re: Fast Connect - Switching to H.245 procedure > > > Dan, > > There's nothing hidden there. Essentially, this text is > re-enforcing the > idea that Fast Connect does not somehow bypass any of the > H.245 messages > (except that channels are opened). When starting H.245, you > send the H.245 > terminal capability set and the master/slave determination messages as > appropriate. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Davidson" <dan.davidson(a)commatch.com> > To: <h323implementors(a)imtc.org> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:38 PM > Subject: Fast Connect - Switching to H.245 procedure > > > > > > The H.323v2 Recommendation describes the Fast Connect procedure and > mentions > > that if necessary, a H.245 connection can be established. > > > > It also mentions: " When H.245 procedures are activated, > all mandatory > > procedures of > > H.245 that normally occur upon initiation of an H.245 > connection shall be > > completed prior > > to initiation of any additional H.245 procedures." > > > > Question: What are the H.245 mandatory procedures the recommendation > refers > > to ? > > > > Dan > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > - > > ------------------------------ > > Please send E-mail to contact(a)imtc.org <mailto:contact@imtc.org> to > > subscribe or unsubscribe from this list > > ------------------------------ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > - > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > ------------------------------ > Please send E-mail to contact(a)imtc.org <mailto:contact@imtc.org> to > subscribe or unsubscribe from this list > ------------------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- >

1 0

contributions APC-1961 - APC-1967 uploaded
by Euchner Martin 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Dear experts, I've uploaded the contributions APC-1961 ... APC-1967 to the incoming directory of the picturetel FTP server ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ <ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/> Once Mr. Okubo has moved them to the appropriate place you will find them at ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0011_Gen/ <ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0011_Gen/> Kind Regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Martin Euchner Fax : +49 89 722 46841 | Siemens AG | ICN M NT 5 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de <mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de> | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int <mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int> | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/network_technology/security/pki.htm | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de <http://www.siemens.de> | __________________ | Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sakae OKUBO [SMTP:okubo@giti.waseda.ac.jp] Gesendet am: Samstag, 21. Oktober 2000 05:33 An: Euchner Martin; Terry L Anderson Cc: Q.12-14/16 Reflector Betreff: Re: Request for APC numbers Dear Mr. Euchner, In response to your requests, the following APC numbers have been allocated to your contributions: At 09:09 +0200 00/10/20, Euchner Martin wrote: >The following block of contributions relate to corrections of the H.235 >Version 2 white text for decision: APC-1961 >Source Title >Editor Resolution of an inconsistency in Draft H.235 Version 2 >regarding Section B.4.3 APC-1962 >Editor Resolution of an inconsistency in Draft H.235 Version 2 >regarding the use of the password and shared secret APC-1963 >Editor Clarification on the use of sendersID and generalID in >white Draft H.235 Version 2 APC-1964 >Editor REVISED ITU-T RECOMMENDATION H.235 VERSION 2 - SECURITY AND >ENCRYPTION FOR H-SERIES (H.323 AND OTHER H.245-BASED) MULTIMEDIA TERMINALS >- CORRECTED VERSION FOR DECISION >The following block of contributions relate to the new H.235 Version 3: APC-1965 >Source Title >Editor Draft H.235 Version 3 - Security and encryption for >H-Series (H.323 and other H.245-based) multimedia terminals APC-1966 >Editor Draft H.235v3 Annex F: "Hybrid Security Profile" APC-1967 >Editor Draft H.235v3 Annex G: "Security for H.323 Annex H in H.323 >Mobile Environments" Best regards, Sakae OKUBO *********************************************************** 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 (to be transferred) +81 3 3204 8194 (direct) Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp <mailto:okubo@giti.or.jp> *********************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

APC-1981 Uploaded
by Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

APC-1981 "Editorial comments to H.450.9 Whitedocument (COM16-117E)" has been uploaded to the pictel Incoming directory. Regards, Karl ------------------------------------ Karl Klaghofer Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 722 31488 Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 E-Mail: karl.klaghofer(a)icn.siemens.de ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] MD-110 uploaded (new messages to H.225 Anne x G)
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Hi, Martin: I am responding to your general question: I like to pint out that we will create "one common VLF/HLF protocol" that can be used by all applications (H.323, H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, and others) that like to support mobility related value-added services. So, I do not think that we have agreed at all to extend H.225.0 Annex G for that purpose that will ONLY be specific to H.323 mobility. If the properties of H.225.0 Annex G protocol are so good that we need to use all those for solving the mobility related VLF/HLF problems, we can still use those properties, if needed, for the "VLF/HLF protocol," but we will definitely NOT term as "H225.0 Annex G protocol." We will name it as a "new protocol" that can be used by all applications without restricting it ONLY to H.323. The conclusion is that the proposal of extending the H.225.0 Annex G for the VLF/HLF services to make it specific ONLY for H.323 is HIGHLY controversial and will create many protocols (instead of one) for the same purpose within ITU. It will be disaster for both service provider and equipment manufacturer community. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Euchner Martin [mailto:Martin.Euchner@ICN.SIEMENS.DE] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:31 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: [H.323 Mobility:] MD-110 uploaded (new messages to H.225 Anne x G) Hi Jaakko, I'm not certain, whether I really understand the purpose of the EncryptionToken. If I look at Annex G v1, H.235 Clear and CryptoTokens are always present in each Annex G message; they are conveyed within AnnexGCommonInfo and thus are already part of each annex G message. Thus, I would say, that EncryptionToken is somewhat redundant and we do not need that this way. The other question I have concerns AuthenticationRejection: Why do you reverse tunnel - that is, feed back - the tunneled message in the reject? Finally a general question: Once there was a discussion that Annex G not only be used among Border elements as currently defined in the H.225 Annex Gv1 scope, but to extend its usage for mobility purposes. If this were true, then Annex G could be applied also between the GK-VLF/BE and between HLF/BE-AuF. What is the current status of that discussion? Kind Regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Martin Euchner Fax : +49 89 722 46841 | Siemens AG | ICN M NT 5 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de <mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de> | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int <mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int> | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/network_technology/security/pki.htm | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de <http://www.siemens.de> | __________________ | Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Gesendet am: Montag, 30. Oktober 2000 11:11 An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Betreff: [H.323 Mobility:] MD-110 uploaded (new messages to H.225 Annex G) Mr. Fortinsky et al, I have uploaded MD-110 containing a contribution on adding new, authentication related messages to the H.225 Annex G protocol, to the URL: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/MD-110_AdditionOfMe ssagesToH225AnnexG.zip . I will send the contribution also to the two meetings in Geneva, but if you send comments really quickly (tomorrow) to me, I may be able to make some changes to the contribution, before distributing it. ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * ------------------------------------------------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Contributions APC-1984, APC-1985, APC-1986 uploaded
by Michael Fortinsky 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

The following contributions: APC-1984 editor (M. Fortinsky) H.225.0 Annex G Version2 Draft APC-1985 VocalTec Communications Ltd H.225.0 Annex G Profile Negotiation APC-1986 VocalTec Communications Ltd Clarifications Related to H.225.0 Annex G Service ID's have been uploaded to: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ Mr Okubo: could you please move them to the 0011_Gen directory? Thank you. Michael Fortinsky ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Program Manager, IP Telephony Group, VocalTec Communications Ltd. Email: mike(a)vocaltec.com Tel: 972 9 9707768 Fax: 972 9 9561867

1 0

AW: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect
by Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Paul, The clarifying text below as proposed by Francois looks good to me. It should be added to v4 in this way. Regards, Karl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2000 07:34 An: Francois Audet; 'Anatoli Levine'; Paul Long Cc: h323implementors(a)imtc.org Betreff: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to and including C onnect Francois, You proposed the following textual changes (see enclosed in <NEW></NEW>): _____ The called endpoint accepts a proposed channel by returning the corresponding OpenLogicalChannel structure in a Q.931 message sent in response to Setup, up to and including Connect. <NEW>A called endpoint may choose to repeat the exact same fastStart element in all subsequent message up to and including Connect. Calling endpoints should react to the first fastStart element received in a response message to the Setup message and ignore any eventual subsequent fastStart elements.</NEW> _____ I don't have any problem inserting this text into H.323, but I do fear that people will rely on such repetitions and they may not happen. Indeed, I would state that an H.323 entity shall not expect more than one response to Fast Connect. I don't disagree with this text, because I always encourage developers to be very tolerant of "noise" on the wire-- and I consider repetitive data like this to be "noise". :-) You call these religious arguments... they might be, but we really need closure on this issue. Unlike the MGCP vs H.248 debates, the world can live with two media gateway control protocols. However, I don't want to see vendors split on implementation issues relating to H.323: that's not good for anybody at all. If we don't come to an agreement on it here and now, you know that we'll be correcting it as a customer fumes over interoperability issues later on. I'd much rather see us agree to something than to bring grief upon our customers. Can everyone live with the above textual changes? Do we need more? Is it well understood that there may be one and only one response containing fastStart? Paul

1 0

Contributions APC-1982 and 1983 uploaded
by Horvath Ernst 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Dear all, contributions APC-1982 and APC-1983 have been uploaded to the incoming directory on the PictureTel site. These are the third drafts of Recs. H.450.10 (Call Offer) and H.450.11 (Call Intrusion). Both are proposed for determination at the forthcoming SG16 meeting. Best regards, Ernst Horvath Siemens AG ======================== Tel: +43 5 1707-45897 Fax: +43 5 1707-56992 Email: ernst.horvath(a)siemens.at ======================== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0