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

Output documents from the SG16 meeting in Geneva
by Sakae OKUBO 27 Nov '00

27 Nov '00

Dear SG16 colleagues, All the subject files uploaded so far, including H.225.0 v4, have been moved to http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0011_Gen/. As part of producing its index, I am trying to complete the attached table. Editors are encouraged to upload his/her works. 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 ***********************************************************

1 0

Virus is found in E-MAIL you send us.
by Shmuel Attiya (SA) 26 Nov '00

26 Nov '00

Sorry to tell you but our mailing system detect that you have send us an Virus infected E-MAIL. Please detect your viruses by your self before sending it to us. no other notice will be send. but in case of other virus detection from you your mail will be block Shmuel attiya System Administrator Accord Networks shmuel(a)accord.co.il Tel:+972-3-9251 431 Fax:+972-3-9211571 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Packetizer updated
by Paul E. Jones 25 Nov '00

25 Nov '00

Folks, I have updated Packetizer with information about H.323v4 and H.248 annexes. Please review the information on these pages for errors (especially the document status of current draft and recently approved documents): http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h248/ http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h248/doc_status.html http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/ http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/doc_status.html Many people use these pages and I want to keep them as accurate as possible. Thanks! Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Third party registration/group registration
by Agboh, Charles 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

Chris, Q1: How can I support third party registration in H.323 v2? A:1 alternateEndpoint structure but I have the UDP packet size limitation so if I want to do third party registration on behalf of thousands of EPs what can I do? Q2: Is there a clean way to circumvent this limit? The application is an H.323-X gateway. X may be SIP. regards, charles -----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@isdn-comms.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:48 PM To: Agboh, Charles Cc: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration Charles, The way you describe this I don't understand how it is "third-party". It is possible to register lots of aliases simultaneously to the same endpoint. This is not third-party as I understand the term. The size of a single RRQ is limited by your transport network, but if you're using UDP that gives you about 64 kilobytes - is that really not enough for your purposes? Maybe you should describe your application, so we can think about how to achieve the desired result. Regards, Chris "Agboh, Charles" wrote: > > Chris, all; > > Thanks for the response. The scenario I am thinking off is this. > > -(a) for a single endpointIdentifier > -(b) for a single callSignalingAddress/rasAddress > -(c) potentially thousands of terminalAlias's. > > In version 2, (a) and (b) are not supported together because of the > following text in H.225.0 V2: > > (d) Section 7.2.2 > ----------------- > > "If the Gatekeeper receives an RRQ having the same Transport > Address as a previous RRQ and a different alias address, it should replace > the translation table entries." > > My question is, how can I have (a), (b), (c) or third party registration > with (c). > > I was thinking that the alternateEndpoint Structure may be usful for (c) but > there is the limitation of the size of the UDP packet. An alternative could > be to use the lightweight RRQ but from section 7.9.1 of H.225.0: > > "An endpoint can send a lightweight RRQ consisting of only keepAlive, > endpointIdentifier, gatekeeperIdentifier, tokens, and timeToLive." > > The last resort for (a), (b) and (c). > --------------------------------------- > > -H.323v4 addtitive registration > -Group registration (i.e. e164 prefix registration). This is supported in > v2->v4. > -Is there another method I can use with an H.323 complaint GK without > creating backward compatibility problems. > > Best regards, > > charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 2:41 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: Third party registration > > Charles, All, > > > Is third party registration supported in H.323 V2, V3, V4? > What's your application? > > According to "original intent", the answer is "yes". However this will > surprise a lot of people and I doubt you'll find many gatekeepers to support > it. It all comes down to a couple of strange-looking "sequence of"s in RRQ. > I > was reliably informed some time ago that the original intent was that IF RRQ > gives more than one callSignalAddresses, it should give the same number of > rasAddresses and either none or the same number of terminalAliases. > Similarly > if giving more than one rasAddress there should be the same number of > callSignalAddresses Then the first element in each list maps to the first > element of the others, the second to the second etc. My assumption is that > RCF > or RRJ ought to be sent only to the first rasAddress in the list. > However, as I said before, this is an undocumented "original intent", and > the > ASN.1 that came out of it is far from the best way to achieve it. I don't > know > if anybody actually handles multiple entries in these fields (apart from > terminalAlias) or, if they do, HOW they handle them. > > Does anyone out there with a gatekeeper have any input on whether or how > they > handle this? > > Charles, > > I'm cross-posting this to the H.323 implementors list - you may get more > idea > of what's actually implemented from there. > > Regards, > Chris > -- > Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager > ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road > Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND > Phone: +44 1344 899 007 > Fax: +44 1344 899 001 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: Third party registration/group registration
by Agboh, Charles 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

Chris, all; Thanks for the response. The scenario I am thinking off is this. -(a) for a single endpointIdentifier -(b) for a single callSignalingAddress/rasAddress -(c) potentially thousands of terminalAlias's. In version 2, (a) and (b) are not supported together because of the following text in H.225.0 V2: (d) Section 7.2.2 ----------------- "If the Gatekeeper receives an RRQ having the same Transport Address as a previous RRQ and a different alias address, it should replace the translation table entries." My question is, how can I have (a), (b), (c) or third party registration with (c). I was thinking that the alternateEndpoint Structure may be usful for (c) but there is the limitation of the size of the UDP packet. An alternative could be to use the lightweight RRQ but from section 7.9.1 of H.225.0: "An endpoint can send a lightweight RRQ consisting of only keepAlive, endpointIdentifier, gatekeeperIdentifier, tokens, and timeToLive." The last resort for (a), (b) and (c). --------------------------------------- -H.323v4 addtitive registration -Group registration (i.e. e164 prefix registration). This is supported in v2->v4. -Is there another method I can use with an H.323 complaint GK without creating backward compatibility problems. Best regards, charles -----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 2:41 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Third party registration Charles, All, > Is third party registration supported in H.323 V2, V3, V4? What's your application? According to "original intent", the answer is "yes". However this will surprise a lot of people and I doubt you'll find many gatekeepers to support it. It all comes down to a couple of strange-looking "sequence of"s in RRQ. I was reliably informed some time ago that the original intent was that IF RRQ gives more than one callSignalAddresses, it should give the same number of rasAddresses and either none or the same number of terminalAliases. Similarly if giving more than one rasAddress there should be the same number of callSignalAddresses Then the first element in each list maps to the first element of the others, the second to the second etc. My assumption is that RCF or RRJ ought to be sent only to the first rasAddress in the list. However, as I said before, this is an undocumented "original intent", and the ASN.1 that came out of it is far from the best way to achieve it. I don't know if anybody actually handles multiple entries in these fields (apart from terminalAlias) or, if they do, HOW they handle them. Does anyone out there with a gatekeeper have any input on whether or how they handle this? Charles, I'm cross-posting this to the H.323 implementors list - you may get more idea of what's actually implemented from there. Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

2 1

Third party registration
by Agboh, Charles 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

Hi, Is third party registration supported in H.323 V2, V3, V4? If not, how could we have this feature without introducing backward compatibility problems. I know about the Additive Registration feature of H.323 V4. regards, charles ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

(no subject)
by David Mary 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

1 0

error in H.245
by Wu Yongming 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

hi,experts h245 says all request need a repsonse,but i find ConferenceRequest.dropTerminal has no corresponding respone message? any comments? thanks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Further update of WP2/16 report
by Sakae OKUBO 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

Dear SG16 experts, I have received another material from Mr. Tosco, which lists all the Recommendations WP2/16 is working on. Now the WP2/16 report is as follows: WP2_Report_001117b.zip Report of WP2/16 * WP2_Report_Part_I.doc General, Q1, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14 * WP2_Report_Part_II.doc Recs for "consent" and texts for approval * WP2_Report_Annex_1.doc Status of Recommendations * WP2_Report_Meetings.doc Planned Rapporteurs meetings * WP2_Report_Liaisons.doc Liaison statements and communications * WP2_Recs_status.doc Recommendations of which WP2/16 is in charge 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 *********************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Decided H.248 Annex F, Fax, text Conversation and Call Discrimination packages uploaded
by Gunnar Hellstrom 23 Nov '00

23 Nov '00

Hi all, The decided H.248 Annex F, Fax, Text Conversation and Call discrimination packages, is uploaded to the Pictel/ AVC site, Incoming directory. Two files are uploaded: H248AnnexFdecided-clean.zip clean H248AnnexFdecided-wcm.zip with change marks Regards Gunnar Hellström **************************************** Gunnar Hellström Ericsson Radio Systems AB tel´+46 708 204 288 ***************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0