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

Re: H.323 Annex D
by Francois Audet 03 Mar '00

03 Mar '00

By default, I believe that editor would be me. This annex was intended to work with H.323v2 systems and later, but you are correct that there was no way to specify T.38 until H.245v4. Of course, H.323v2 systems used H.245v3. H.323v3 systems used H.245v3 or higher (the key element). So, I suppose the question is: is H.323v3 required? Surely not, as there are implementations out there. We have argued about whether H.323v2 systems could use later versions of H.245. The outcome was "no"-- perhaps that needs to be revisited. Interesting: I tought H.323v2 used H.245v2... Side issue anyways. There have been recent changes to H.245 ASN.1 to support T.38. At least there have been some proposed changes. Unfortunately, I missed much of that discussion. The meeting report says that those changes were added to H.245v6. Mike, is it true that the T.38-related changes from H.245v4 to H.245v6 were nothing more than additions to H.245-- not "changes", per se. Also, did the proposed changes (from TD8/WP2, I believe) make it into H.245v6? My understanding would be that the changes were introduced in H.245v4, but had mistakes that were corrected in H.245v6. As for Annex D, I am considering just pulling that into the H.323 document, rather than keeping it as a separately published annex-- does anybody object to that? That would certainly address questions related to references going forward. However, we need to reach a decision about the current publication. I suspect we need something for the IG, but the problem is that H.323v2 is "old news" now. What to do.... I would support including Annex D in the main H.323v4 document (wich would imply H.245v6). The other alternatives would be to mandate H.323v4/H.245v6 in Annex D. But I prefer the first alternative.

3 2

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 02 Mar '00

02 Mar '00

Bahman, I definitely agree with the interpretation of (1). I think that protocol's requirements and reasonable topology definition should be addressed by SG16. In regards to (2), I tend to disagree. H.323 has been using RTP specification from the very beginning. I don't think that today anyone doubts the intelligence behind this decision. I believe the benefit of using required services in an interoperable manner is more important that being afraid of sending the wrong signals. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Bahman Mobasser <bahman.mobasser(a)ALCATEL.FR> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. Orit- In my opinion what would most useful would a restrictive interpretation of 1, and I will explain: what is needed is the specification of an H.323-SIP call. Depending on the network configuration assumptions (i.e., what equipment is between the two end-points), the mapping needs will become clear. On this option I share your point of view- while this may be politically incorrect, I think inviting everybody to the Picnic does not necessarily advance things. If one organisation (IETF) has taken the lead in doing this, then the best thing to do is to encourage them by taking proposals there. 2 confuses me too much and sends, in my opinion, completely the wrong signals and should be avoided. Bahman ----------------------------------------------------- Bahman Mobasser Tel: +33 1 30771608 Alcatel Mobile: +33 6 12091822 10 rue Latécoère Fax: +33 1 30779914 78140 Vélizy Voice & Fax Mail: +33 1 5301 0789 France Roaming email: Bahman(a)Bahman.org ----------------------------------------------------- [[ MAPI 1.0 storage : 4140 in winmail.dat ]] -----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com] On Behalf Of Orit Levin Sent: lundi 28 février 2000 17:25 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. Hello! I can see two (hardly overlapping) directions to move forward: (1) H.323 - SIP interworking by mapping/translation (2) Definition of how H.323 takes use of Internet services being defined by IETF In the regards to (1), my personal preference would be to leave this work under the IETF process. I suspect they had a perfect reason being the first to start this work. It doesn't mean SG16 shouldn't prevent them from making mistakes on H.323 side. In regards to (2), I think it has to be addressed by H.323 as a part of H.323. I would love to see more comments on this (less political) part of the work. In the meanwhile I am putting all the suggestions and alternatives in the updated paper (which is not attached yet). Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(a)CS.COLUMBIA.EDU> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2000 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Since my name popped up in a recent email discussion, a few remarks: > >1) Yes, the SIP-H.323 list was created by myself; it is open to anybody. >While its creation was triggered by the interest generated by a proposal >(Internet draft) written by Kundan Singh (a student of mine) and myself, >it is open to any discussion related to the topic of interworking. >(Discussions about the relative merits of protocols are decidedly less >appreciated.) Whether people use this mailing list or create something >new and different is obviously beyond my control. > >The creation of the mailing list was done without any implied IETF >endorsement or even endorsement of other SIP authors. (I hope they don't >mind too much...) > >2) In this context, there is one important difference between the ITU >and IETF standardization process which particularly affects this >discussion. While all ITU recommendations are "standards", most IETF >RFCs are not. For the case at hand, it would probably be considered >inappropriate for a standards-track RFC except, with lots of stretch of >the imagination, a BCP (best current practice). If an interoperability >document does get published within the IETF, it is likely to appear as >an Informational or possibly Experimental RFC. In this particular case, >as long as the signaling gateway looks like a valid SIP or H.323 entity, >the other SIP and H.323 entities won't know that it is talking to the >"other side" (you can insert "dark side" or "the enemy" if you are so >inclined). > >As our initial document points out, there is probably a range of >solutions that satisfy this basic criterion, depending on (for example) >to what extent X entities are visible in Y land. > >In my view, publishing any such interoperability document has the >primary benefit of saving implementors of such devices, should they >become popular, a bit of thinking time and maybe avoid some pitfalls. >They are not strictly *necessary* - anybody could derive one of the >modes that we described or something different, as long as it satisfies >the basic "in Rome, do as the Romans" criterion mentioned earlier. > >Thus, given that a standards-track document is not really called for on >the IETF side, this effort could be significantly simpler than, say, the >Megaco/H.248 effort. My rough perception is that the IESG will basically >ask at publication time whether the document suggested as an >Informational RFC violates IETF protocols (SIP and SDP, in this case). >If not, and it does no other harm (e.g., broadcasting a RAS-like query >to all SIP nodes in the Internet or something similarly stupid), the >IETF process should be relatively straightforward, even without a lot of >cooperation machinery, liaison agreements and the like. I realize that >this assessment is probably hopelessly naive, but I am concerned that >the collective effort expended on meta-discussions is rapidly >approaching the effort that seems to be necessary to write an >interoperability document for basic services, including the time to >implement it. > >We'd be happy to provide the infrastructure for meetings, allowing the >ITU participants to use their H.323 phones to call our SIP phones using >our gateway implementation :-) No, we won't charge the ITU for these >translation services :-) > >Regards, > >Henning

2 1

Re: H.323 Annex D
by Francois Audet 02 Mar '00

02 Mar '00

I will seriously consider pulling Annex D into the main document. It makes my life a bit easier, too. However, I suppose it's worth noting which version of H.323 an Annex will work with in general. I have had similar inquiries about Annex E and Annex F. Perhaps a new section in the Implementers Guide is in order to address those issues? I think that it should be in the summary of the Recommendation, if we pusblish it separatly. Not everybody reads the implementor's guide (although they should). That is what we have done for H.323 to relate it to different versions of H.225.0 and H.245.

2 1

MAC21 Art Fair 2000
by feria＠MAC21.COM 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

M A C 2 1 - 2000 International Contemporary Art Fair Feria Internacional de Arte Contemporáneo =============================================== Contenido: 1 ................. ENGLISH TEXT 2 ................. TEXTO EN ESPAŃOL **************** ENGLISH TEXT **************** You can visit actualized: www.mac21.com with complete information of 3 Edition of MAC21 - International Contemporary Art Fair, that will take place in the Fairs and Congresses Center of Marbella (Spain), from 19 to 23 July, 2000. Galleries, conditions, application, prices,... Moreover, information of the 2 Edition of Art-e-mail, International Exhibition of E-mails of Artists. MAC21 feria(a)mac21.com art-e-mail(a)mac21.com =============================================== We adhere to responsible e-mail ethics if you wish to be "removed" from future mailings, please click on this link mailto: publicidad@mac21.com?subject=REMOVE:itu-sg16@mailbag.cps.intel.com and hit send. =============================================== **************** TEXTO ESPAŃOL **************** Ya puedes visitar actualizada: www.mac21.com con toda la información de la 3 edicion de MAC21-Feria Internacional de Arte Contemporaneo, que se celebrara en el Palacio de Ferias y Congresos de Marbella (Espańa), del 19 al 23 de julio del 2000. Galerías, condiciones, inscripcion, precios,... Además, información de la 2 Edición de Art-e-mail, Exposición Internacional de E-mails de Artistas. MAC21 feria(a)mac21.com art-e-mail(a)mac21.com =============================================== Acogiendonos a la etica de la comunicacion por e-mail, si desea ser "borrado" de futuros envios, por favor pulse el siguiente link mailto: publicidad@mac21.com?subject=BORRAR:itu-sg16@mailbag.cps.intel.com y envie. ===============================================

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Hi, Bahman and Orit, I agree with Bahman. Orit, would you please clarify more what do you expect with respect to your proposals 1 and 2? Best regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Bahman Mobasser [SMTP:bahman.mobasser@ALCATEL.FR] > Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:23 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Orit- > > In my opinion what would most useful would a restrictive interpretation of > 1, and I will explain: what is needed is the specification of an H.323-SIP > call. Depending on the network configuration assumptions (i.e., what > equipment is between the two end-points), the mapping needs will become > clear. > > On this option I share your point of view- while this may be politically > incorrect, I think inviting everybody to the Picnic does not necessarily > advance things. If one organisation (IETF) has taken the lead in doing > this, > then the best thing to do is to encourage them by taking proposals there. > > 2 confuses me too much and sends, in my opinion, completely the wrong > signals and should be avoided. > > Bahman > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Bahman Mobasser Tel: +33 1 30771608 > Alcatel Mobile: +33 6 12091822 > 10 rue Latécoère Fax: +33 1 30779914 > 78140 Vélizy Voice & Fax Mail: +33 1 5301 0789 > France Roaming email: Bahman(a)Bahman.org > ----------------------------------------------------- > > [[ MAPI 1.0 storage : 4140 in winmail.dat ]] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > [mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com] On Behalf Of Orit Levin > Sent: lundi 28 février 2000 17:25 > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Hello! > I can see two (hardly overlapping) directions to move forward: > (1) H.323 - SIP interworking by mapping/translation > (2) Definition of how H.323 takes use of Internet services being defined > by > IETF > > In the regards to (1), my personal preference would be to leave this work > under the IETF process. I suspect they had a perfect reason being the > first > to start this work. It doesn't mean SG16 shouldn't prevent them from > making > mistakes on H.323 side. > > In regards to (2), I think it has to be addressed by H.323 as a part of > H.323. I would love to see more comments on this (less political) part of > the work. > > In the meanwhile I am putting all the suggestions and alternatives in the > updated paper (which is not attached yet). > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit(a)radvision.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(a)CS.COLUMBIA.EDU> > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> > Date: Sunday, February 27, 2000 10:57 PM > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > >Since my name popped up in a recent email discussion, a few remarks: > > > >1) Yes, the SIP-H.323 list was created by myself; it is open to anybody. > >While its creation was triggered by the interest generated by a proposal > >(Internet draft) written by Kundan Singh (a student of mine) and myself, > >it is open to any discussion related to the topic of interworking. > >(Discussions about the relative merits of protocols are decidedly less > >appreciated.) Whether people use this mailing list or create something > >new and different is obviously beyond my control. > > > >The creation of the mailing list was done without any implied IETF > >endorsement or even endorsement of other SIP authors. (I hope they don't > >mind too much...) > > > >2) In this context, there is one important difference between the ITU > >and IETF standardization process which particularly affects this > >discussion. While all ITU recommendations are "standards", most IETF > >RFCs are not. For the case at hand, it would probably be considered > >inappropriate for a standards-track RFC except, with lots of stretch of > >the imagination, a BCP (best current practice). If an interoperability > >document does get published within the IETF, it is likely to appear as > >an Informational or possibly Experimental RFC. In this particular case, > >as long as the signaling gateway looks like a valid SIP or H.323 entity, > >the other SIP and H.323 entities won't know that it is talking to the > >"other side" (you can insert "dark side" or "the enemy" if you are so > >inclined). > > > >As our initial document points out, there is probably a range of > >solutions that satisfy this basic criterion, depending on (for example) > >to what extent X entities are visible in Y land. > > > >In my view, publishing any such interoperability document has the > >primary benefit of saving implementors of such devices, should they > >become popular, a bit of thinking time and maybe avoid some pitfalls. > >They are not strictly *necessary* - anybody could derive one of the > >modes that we described or something different, as long as it satisfies > >the basic "in Rome, do as the Romans" criterion mentioned earlier. > > > >Thus, given that a standards-track document is not really called for on > >the IETF side, this effort could be significantly simpler than, say, the > >Megaco/H.248 effort. My rough perception is that the IESG will basically > >ask at publication time whether the document suggested as an > >Informational RFC violates IETF protocols (SIP and SDP, in this case). > >If not, and it does no other harm (e.g., broadcasting a RAS-like query > >to all SIP nodes in the Internet or something similarly stupid), the > >IETF process should be relatively straightforward, even without a lot of > >cooperation machinery, liaison agreements and the like. I realize that > >this assessment is probably hopelessly naive, but I am concerned that > >the collective effort expended on meta-discussions is rapidly > >approaching the effort that seems to be necessary to write an > >interoperability document for basic services, including the time to > >implement it. > > > >We'd be happy to provide the infrastructure for meetings, allowing the > >ITU participants to use their H.323 phones to call our SIP phones using > >our gateway implementation :-) No, we won't charge the ITU for these > >translation services :-) > > > >Regards, > > > >Henning

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex D
by Francois Audet 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Paul, do you have a copy of H.245v3? All I can find are v1, v2, v4, v5, v6... -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 9:13 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 Annex D Francois, Actually, I went back to look and we do allow newer versions of H.245 to be used with H.323v2 systems. It was inserted into the H.323 IG in May 1999 and is also in H.323v3. Unfortunately, the text is not as clear as it should be. That's something I will address. You are correct that new additions were made to H.245v6 (as confirmed by Mike Nilsson) to support T.38. I don't recall now what the specific issue were: whether H.245v4 would not work at all or whether the additions were merely improvements. I do remember that at one point, Annex B/T.38 has ASN.1 that differed from H.245-- that was certainly an issue. As far as I know, though, Annex D/H.323 will work with H.245v4. Can anyone else comment? I will seriously consider pulling Annex D into the main document. It makes my life a bit easier, too. However, I suppose it's worth noting which version of H.323 an Annex will work with in general. I have had similar inquiries about Annex E and Annex F. Perhaps a new section in the Implementers Guide is in order to address those issues? Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Francois Audet <mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:18 PM Subject: Re: H.323 Annex D By default, I believe that editor would be me. This annex was intended to work with H.323v2 systems and later, but you are correct that there was no way to specify T.38 until H.245v4. Of course, H.323v2 systems used H.245v3. H.323v3 systems used H.245v3 or higher (the key element). So, I suppose the question is: is H.323v3 required? Surely not, as there are implementations out there. We have argued about whether H.323v2 systems could use later versions of H.245. The outcome was "no"-- perhaps that needs to be revisited. Interesting: I tought H.323v2 used H.245v2... Side issue anyways. There have been recent changes to H.245 ASN.1 to support T.38. At least there have been some proposed changes. Unfortunately, I missed much of that discussion. The meeting report says that those changes were added to H.245v6. Mike, is it true that the T.38-related changes from H.245v4 to H.245v6 were nothing more than additions to H.245-- not "changes", per se. Also, did the proposed changes (from TD8/WP2, I believe) make it into H.245v6? My understanding would be that the changes were introduced in H.245v4, but had mistakes that were corrected in H.245v6. As for Annex D, I am considering just pulling that into the H.323 document, rather than keeping it as a separately published annex-- does anybody object to that? That would certainly address questions related to references going forward. However, we need to reach a decision about the current publication. I suspect we need something for the IG, but the problem is that H.323v2 is "old news" now. What to do.... I would support including Annex D in the main H.323v4 document (wich would imply H.245v6). The other alternatives would be to mandate H.323v4/H.245v6 in Annex D. But I prefer the first alternative.

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Hello! I can see two (hardly overlapping) directions to move forward: (1) H.323 - SIP interworking by mapping/translation (2) Definition of how H.323 takes use of Internet services being defined by IETF In the regards to (1), my personal preference would be to leave this work under the IETF process. I suspect they had a perfect reason being the first to start this work. It doesn't mean SG16 shouldn't prevent them from making mistakes on H.323 side. In regards to (2), I think it has to be addressed by H.323 as a part of H.323. I would love to see more comments on this (less political) part of the work. In the meanwhile I am putting all the suggestions and alternatives in the updated paper (which is not attached yet). Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(a)CS.COLUMBIA.EDU> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2000 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Since my name popped up in a recent email discussion, a few remarks: > >1) Yes, the SIP-H.323 list was created by myself; it is open to anybody. >While its creation was triggered by the interest generated by a proposal >(Internet draft) written by Kundan Singh (a student of mine) and myself, >it is open to any discussion related to the topic of interworking. >(Discussions about the relative merits of protocols are decidedly less >appreciated.) Whether people use this mailing list or create something >new and different is obviously beyond my control. > >The creation of the mailing list was done without any implied IETF >endorsement or even endorsement of other SIP authors. (I hope they don't >mind too much...) > >2) In this context, there is one important difference between the ITU >and IETF standardization process which particularly affects this >discussion. While all ITU recommendations are "standards", most IETF >RFCs are not. For the case at hand, it would probably be considered >inappropriate for a standards-track RFC except, with lots of stretch of >the imagination, a BCP (best current practice). If an interoperability >document does get published within the IETF, it is likely to appear as >an Informational or possibly Experimental RFC. In this particular case, >as long as the signaling gateway looks like a valid SIP or H.323 entity, >the other SIP and H.323 entities won't know that it is talking to the >"other side" (you can insert "dark side" or "the enemy" if you are so >inclined). > >As our initial document points out, there is probably a range of >solutions that satisfy this basic criterion, depending on (for example) >to what extent X entities are visible in Y land. > >In my view, publishing any such interoperability document has the >primary benefit of saving implementors of such devices, should they >become popular, a bit of thinking time and maybe avoid some pitfalls. >They are not strictly *necessary* - anybody could derive one of the >modes that we described or something different, as long as it satisfies >the basic "in Rome, do as the Romans" criterion mentioned earlier. > >Thus, given that a standards-track document is not really called for on >the IETF side, this effort could be significantly simpler than, say, the >Megaco/H.248 effort. My rough perception is that the IESG will basically >ask at publication time whether the document suggested as an >Informational RFC violates IETF protocols (SIP and SDP, in this case). >If not, and it does no other harm (e.g., broadcasting a RAS-like query >to all SIP nodes in the Internet or something similarly stupid), the >IETF process should be relatively straightforward, even without a lot of >cooperation machinery, liaison agreements and the like. I realize that >this assessment is probably hopelessly naive, but I am concerned that >the collective effort expended on meta-discussions is rapidly >approaching the effort that seems to be necessary to write an >interoperability document for basic services, including the time to >implement it. > >We'd be happy to provide the infrastructure for meetings, allowing the >ITU participants to use their H.323 phones to call our SIP phones using >our gateway implementation :-) No, we won't charge the ITU for these >translation services :-) > >Regards, > >Henning

2 1

Re: H.323/SIP interworking mailing list
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Many thanks for this, I have looked at the mailing list. I agree that this is an excellent "neutral" forum for discussing further any SIP/H.323 interworking problems. Already some people from TIPHON, IETF; SG16 are partcipating. We have to make it sure that also key "interworking" individuals from IMTC and Softwswitch participate. An additional advantage that I see from this would be a common wisdom on what (if anything) should be done by the standards bodies (as standards), such as IETF, ITU and ETSI, the Interop Specs Groups such as IMTC, ETSI (also here) (as Requirements, Interop Specs, Guidelines....) and the Interoperability Test Groups (such as IMTC and Softswitch). Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > ---------- > From: Henning Schulzrinne[SMTP:schulzrinne@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU] > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:28 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: H.323/SIP interworking mailing list > > It has been pointed out that I forgot to give details about the > interworking mailing list. Here they are: > > I've set a mailing list for those interested in the discussion of > SIP/H.323 interworking. Discussion is *not* limited to the draft written > by Kundan Singh and myself. The list is not moderated, but you have to > be a member to post (to minimize spam). Discussions about the merits of > signaling protocols are considered off-topic. An archive of the > discussion is available at the URL below. > > You can subscribe at http://www.egroups.com/group/sip-h323/ by clicking > on "group info" or by sending email to sip-h323-subscribe(a)egroups.com > > -- > Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs >

1 0

[H.323Moblility:] Documents uploaded
by Jaakko Sundquist 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Hi all, I have uploaded the documents: H323AnnexDraft03.zip and H323AnnexHTOR.zip to: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/ . The Annex H draft is the output of Geneva meeting (so it does not yet contain the changes based on Mr. Tran's comments) as is the Terms of Reference (which I hope, we do not have to change anymore). - Jaakko Sundquist ------------------------------------------------------- In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Priorities (RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.)
by Michaely, Boaz 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Radhika and all We have a crying need to move forward with H.323, in order to offer value to our customers (such as your company :-). A lot of expert time is being spent on REAL needs such as H.248, robustness, better signalling support, better service control and mobility. It is a question of priorities that each delegate should make on how they best serve their industry. As has always been the case in SG16, if there is a willingness of people to contribute, then the topic advances, otherwise it stalls. (good example is H.246 Annex D). In my humble opinion, it is unfare to ask people like Paul to spend their time here. Let's wait for the interested parties to come up with proposals. For what it's worth, I second Orit's motion on her #2 option. Again - SG16 should be focusing on added value, rather than on added market confusion. Boaz > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:19 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > Hi, Everyone: > > I understand what Paul has pointed out. We know that a lot > work needs to be > done when it comes to an agreement between the two standard > organizations: > ITU-T SG16 and IETF. We have seen how other works had been > done in the past > cooperatively despite the difficulty. > > However, there is a crying need in the industry for the H.323-SIP > interoperability standard. We are always optimistic that the > good-will will > always prevail for the benefit of the user community of the > whole world as > these standard organizations are committed to provide > interoperability. > > We not talking about the work for the H.323-SIP > interoperability that is > being done in other forums (e.g., IMTC, ETSI/TIPHON, and > others). These > works will go on and they did in the past, and as they will > be doing now. > > We are working for an internationally acceptable standard > where both ITU-T > and IETF will make it a formal standard. Accordingly, we are > working as per > agreement made in the last SG16 (Feb'00) meeting: To bring > contributions in > the SG16 ( - in Q.14/16 and joint discussions will be held > for both Q.13 and > Q.14). > > It can also been seen that a request has also been sent to > the IETF for a > BOF session in the upcoming meeting (March'00). > > Efforts are underway to overcome all difficulties. I > appreciate Paul to > clarify all aspects of difficulties that we might have to > face for working > in this new area and we are also counting on Paul's support > for our effort > as well. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 1:15 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > Folks, > > > > I agree that the goal of a standards body is to create > specifications to > > allow interoperability. However, this is "delicate" > territory. This work > > is not similar to creating a new annex to H.246 wherein the > ITU specifies > > interoperability between various systems or protocols > defined elsewhere in > > the ITU. This work involves describing how to interwork an > ITU system > > with > > an IETF RFC. > > > > It's not an impossible task, but one that may lead to > tremendous debate. > > It > > is quite obvious that some members of the ITU and some > members of the IETF > > have very basic philosophical differences. I can tell you that some > > members > > of the IETF will quickly reject anything the ITU does to standardize > > interoperability. I can also tell you that some of those > members will > > also > > reject anything ETSI does, as well. > > > > This is not to say that I am opposed to such an effort-- if > companies > > support the idea, that is enough of an indication to me > that people feel > > it's necessary and should be done. However, if we head > down that path, I > > really believe that this should be a joint effort between > the ITU and the > > IETF. Why? Because there are strengths and weaknesses with both > > protocols > > and one could easily introduce bias into such a > specification in such a > > way > > as to highlight the strengths of one protocol and the > weaknesses of the > > other. > > > > And, of course, everyone here knows that H.323 is far > superior to SIP, > > right? :-) > > > > Again, I do not disagree with the work. However, as sad > and pathetic as > > this statement may sound, it's true: the IETF members > (especially the > > supporters of SIP) have little respect for the ITU and, > unless we do this > > jointly, our lone efforts are likely to not be well received. I've > > already > > heard enough negative remarks about the efforts the ITU is > undertaking > > (especially in SG13) to describe new Internet protocols; > the claims are > > that > > "that is work the IETF does and the ITU has no business doing it". > > > > It has already been suggested that a third party may be the > better choice > > for such a work. Mr. Taylor mentioned that ETSI may > already be doing > > this. > > Did I understand that correctly? If that's the case, and > if we can get > > the > > IETF to agree to allow them to do such work, we should > probably let them > > do > > the work. > > > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has > also been the > > case > > > for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting. > > > > > > More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly > indicated that we > > should > > > bring contributions to get the work started. The > interworking between > > H.323 > > > and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed > jointly with > > Q.13 > > > and Q.14). > > > > > > There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP > > > Interworking. A large number of people throughout the > world (starting > > from > > > the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me. > > > > > > The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide > > "INTEROPERABILITY." > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika R. Roy > > > AT&T > > > +1 732 420 1580 > > > rrroy(a)att.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:42 PM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > Dear Rob! > > > > Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully. > > > > The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a > > contribution > > > > for > > > > Osaka meeting. > > > > I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward, > especially if > > many > > > > people see it as valuable. > > > > > > > > BTW: Who said the work shouldn't be done jointly? My > point was that > > it > > > > may > > > > start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU > and IETF". And > > > > after > > > > all we are NOT talking about joined standard > definition. In worst case > > > > about > > > > joined Network definition. :-)) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Orit Levin > > > > RADVision Inc. > > > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > www.radvision.com > > > > orit(a)radvision.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Callaghan, Robert <Robert.Callaghan(a)icn.siemens.com> > > > > To: 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com>; > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > > > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Orit, > > > > > > > > This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: > > > > > > > > ======= Start > > > > > > > > 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] > > > > This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: > > > > · Concerns about joint development with IETF > > > > · Which version of SIP would be used? > > > > · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - > need to look > > > > at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and > see how output > > > > compares > > > > with phrasing of work in these questions > > > > · Activities should include comparing call models, > media signaling > > > > · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should > not be done in > > > > SG16 > > > > · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - > this would > > > > split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 > have moved away > > from > > > > joint sessions) > > > > · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use > only the IETF > > > > equivalent of a Recommendation) > > > > · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP > > > > Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions > on how to > > approach > > > > the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in > a controlled > > > > architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a > > framework. > > > > See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. > > > > > > > > ======= End > > > > > > > > This is the statement in the Q.13 report: > > > > > > > > ======= Start > > > > > > > > D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 > and SIP Networks > > > > > > > > This calls for the creation of an interoperability > question in SG16, > > that > > > > would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > > > > > > With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that > there are several > > > > versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to > interoperate with SIP > > as > > > > SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom > of starting a > > new > > > > question near the end of the study period was also > questioned. It was > > > > also > > > > mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of > > defining > > > > the procedures and architecture that would apply to > this work. One > > > > suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards > > bodies > > > > such > > > > as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of > the work, i.e. > > that > > > > the > > > > target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents > produced by > > > > various > > > > other bodies. There were various expressions of > support that this > > should > > > > be > > > > studied, and contributions related to architectures and > priorities are > > > > solicited. It was agreed that contributions should > address both Q13 > > and > > > > Q14. > > > > > > > > ======= End > > > > > > > > I cannot see in these statements any thing representing > an agreement > > as > > to > > > > the work to be performed. Your attached terms of > reference were not > > > > approved at the working party, which is required, nor > in the Question > > > > meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do > not see how to > > move > > > > the > > > > work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. > Therefore you > > paper > > > > on > > > > terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to > the Osaka > > meeting > > > > for discussion. > > > > > > > > I do know that the proposal for a new question was > rejected at the > > > > question > > > > level, and not brought forward to the working party or > study group > > level. > > > > > > > > Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work > with H.225.0 > > Annex > > > > G > > > > to TRIP. Other items are to follow. > > > > > > > > For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do > not feel that > > the > > > > ITU > > > > should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not > accept any IETF > > person > > > > as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done > jointly. No > > one > > > > wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is > the process to > > be > > > > used? > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Robert Callaghan > > > > Siemens Information and Communication Networks > > > > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > > > > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sebestyen! > > > > There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the > same meaning, > > but > > I > > > > am > > > > sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva > meeting additional > > > > related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I > was referring to > > the > > > > attached paper. (You will find references to relevant > contributions in > > > > this > > > > paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible > > > > directions. > > > > We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an > > understanding > > > > of the work we would like to pursue and prepare > contributions for > > Osaka > > > > meeting. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Orit Levin > > > > RADVision Inc. > > > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > www.radvision.com > > > > orit(a)radvision.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 > <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; > > 'Orit > > > > Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> > > > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Orit, > > > > >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I > have only found in > > > > TD-74 > > > > >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > > > > > > > > > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > > > > > > > > > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP > > > > interworking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 > and SIP Networks > > > > > > > > > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability > question in SG16, > > that > > > > >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > > > > > > > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that > there are several > > > > >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to > interoperate with > > SIP > > as > > > > >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom > of starting a > > new > > > > >question near the end of the study period was also > questioned. It > > was > > > > also > > > > >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done > in terms of > > defining > > > > >the procedures and architecture that would apply to > this work. One > > > > >suggestion is that interoperability should be between > standards > > bodies > > > > such > > > > >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of > the work, i.e. > > that > > > > the > > > > >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type > documents produced by > > > > various > > > > >other bodies. There were various expressions of > support that this > > should > > > > be > > > > >studied, and contributions related to architectures > and priorities > > are > > > > >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should > address both Q13 > > and > > > > >Q14." > > > > > > > > > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the > interim work? > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Istvan > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > > > - > > > > >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen > > > > >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, > > > > >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich > > > > >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 > > > > >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 > > > > >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; > istvan(a)sebestyen.de > > > > >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; > > > > >Siemens > > Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 > > > > >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > > > -- > > > > - > > > > >---------------- > > > > > > > > > >> ---------- > > > > >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > > > > >> Reply To: Orit Levin > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM > > > > >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi! > > > > >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" > work in ITU-T > > as > > > > >> described in the initial paper. > > > > >> > > > > >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new > > > > specifications > > > > >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. > This is a time to > > > > >> consider each one of these specifications to be > applied to H.323. > > If > > > > found > > > > >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End > > Services) > > or > > > > >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP > > > > scenarios), > > > > >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. > These two are > > > > >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. > > > > >> > > > > >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work > scope. Based on > > our > > > > >> discussions, it seems like more then one company > would like to see > > this > > > > >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. > (forget the > > name > > > > :-) > > > > >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for > this kind of work, > > the > > > > >> only possible way to do it is to participate in > ITU-T process (with > > all > > > > >> its meaning). > > > > >> > > > > >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process > sorting out topics > > of > > > > our > > > > >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work > being done in > > other > > > > >> organizations. We would like to see experts > (including from TIPHON > > and > > > > >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting > from the mailing > > list) > > > > >> keeping us from repeating their work and being > aligned with them. > > > > >> > > > > >> Best Regards, > > > > >> Orit Levin > > > > >> RADVision Inc. > > > > >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > >> www.radvision.com > > > > >> orit(a)radvision.com > > > > >> > > > >

1 0