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

Re: first draft of H.225.0 Annex G version 2
by Michaely, Boaz 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

Well done, Mike .. An note (editorial ?) which people may want to consider: The reference to ASN.1 probably needs to be updated, as the latest version is from December 1997. I am no expert on ASN.1 so I have no knowledge on whether there is a sound reason to actually refer to the outdated recommendation. The updated reference is : ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998, Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation Best regards, Boaz Boaz Michaely Senior System Architect, Corporate Comverse Network Systems Tel: +972 (3) 766-3844 , Mobile +972 (50) 39-30-17 http://people.itu.int/~michaely mailto:boaz_michaely@comverse.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Fortinsky [mailto:Michael_Fortinsky@VOCALTEC.COM] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:52 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: first draft of H.225.0 Annex G version 2 > > > > During the recent Geneva ITU-SG16 meeting, it was decided to > start working > on version2 of H.225.0 Annex G. > The current goal is to determine version2 at the Nov, 2000 > SG16 meeting. > > For those of you who aren't aware of this - I have assumed > the editorship > responsibility for H.225.0 Annex G (the editor > was Boaz Michaely). > > Attached is a first draft of version 2. It includes the following: > > (1) Editorial corrections to version 1 > > (2) Integration of the following changes from the H.323 > Implementers Guide > (pl-92.doc from Geneva): > - [6.10.1 from Impl Guide] changes related to Multiple Usage > Indications for the Same Call - sections 1.7.4.1, 1.7.4, 1.8.2.28 > - [6.10.2 from Impl Guide] changes related to Identifying the > Terminated Service Relationship - sections 1.8.2, 1.8.2.6 > - [6.10.3 from Impl Guide] changes related to the > Need to Provide > a replyAddress when using Bi-directional Connections - section 1.8.2 > - [6.10.4 from Impl Guide] changes related to Sending > UsageIndications without a Service Relationship - sections > 1.7.4, 1.8.2.5 > - [6.10.5 from Impl Guide] changes to the ASN.1 - section 2 > - [6.10.6 from Impl Guide] changes related to Clarification > Related to Service Relationships - section 6.8.2.4.5 > - [6.10.7 from Impl Guide] changes related to > UsageIndicationRejection reasons - section 1.8.2.30 > - [6.10.8 from Impl Guide] corrections to tables and > diagrams - > sections 1.9.1, 1.9.1.1, 1.9.2, 1.9.2.1 > > (3) changes resulting from D347 from the Geneva SG16 meeting > (Feb, 2000) - > sections 1.8.2.3, 1.8.2.17, 1.8.2.18, 2 > > (4) changes resulting from D449 from the Geneva SG16 meeting > (Feb, 2000) - > sections 1.7.4, 1.7.4.2, 1.8.2.5, 1.8.2.6, 1.8.2.7, 2 > > > Any comments and/or contributions are welcome. > > > (See attached file: H.225.0 Annex G v2.zip) > > > 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

first draft of H.225.0 Annex G version 2
by Michael Fortinsky 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

During the recent Geneva ITU-SG16 meeting, it was decided to start working on version2 of H.225.0 Annex G. The current goal is to determine version2 at the Nov, 2000 SG16 meeting. For those of you who aren't aware of this - I have assumed the editorship responsibility for H.225.0 Annex G (the editor was Boaz Michaely). Attached is a first draft of version 2. It includes the following: (1) Editorial corrections to version 1 (2) Integration of the following changes from the H.323 Implementers Guide (pl-92.doc from Geneva): - [6.10.1 from Impl Guide] changes related to Multiple Usage Indications for the Same Call - sections 1.7.4.1, 1.7.4, 1.8.2.28 - [6.10.2 from Impl Guide] changes related to Identifying the Terminated Service Relationship - sections 1.8.2, 1.8.2.6 - [6.10.3 from Impl Guide] changes related to the Need to Provide a replyAddress when using Bi-directional Connections - section 1.8.2 - [6.10.4 from Impl Guide] changes related to Sending UsageIndications without a Service Relationship - sections 1.7.4, 1.8.2.5 - [6.10.5 from Impl Guide] changes to the ASN.1 - section 2 - [6.10.6 from Impl Guide] changes related to Clarification Related to Service Relationships - section 6.8.2.4.5 - [6.10.7 from Impl Guide] changes related to UsageIndicationRejection reasons - section 1.8.2.30 - [6.10.8 from Impl Guide] corrections to tables and diagrams - sections 1.9.1, 1.9.1.1, 1.9.2, 1.9.2.1 (3) changes resulting from D347 from the Geneva SG16 meeting (Feb, 2000) - sections 1.8.2.3, 1.8.2.17, 1.8.2.18, 2 (4) changes resulting from D449 from the Geneva SG16 meeting (Feb, 2000) - sections 1.7.4, 1.7.4.2, 1.8.2.5, 1.8.2.6, 1.8.2.7, 2 Any comments and/or contributions are welcome. (See attached file: H.225.0 Annex G v2.zip) 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

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Henning Schulzrinne 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

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: In Defense Of Cooperation
by Mike Buckley 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

While agreeing wholeheartedly with Paul Jones's reply to Francois Menard I side with Tom's in his conclusion that the Megaco/H.248 collaboration has been a success. I would go further, and say I think it has been an outstanding achievement, considering the odds that were stacked against it. I would list among these: 1. Deep philosophical differences of approach between the two Standards bodies in the way a Standard emerges and the decision processes involved, 2. Strongly held technical beliefs on both sides; arising partly from 'religion' and partly from conflicting strategic objectives, 2. Vested commercial interests on the part of some of the key players, 3. A marketing campaign going on in the background, aimed at replacing H.323 with SIP/SDP, To talk of mistrust and suspicion is to grossly simplify the situation. Having said all this, I would like to thank and congratulate all involved for bringing this effort to such a successful conclusion. In particular, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Tom for the way he has negotiated all these obstacles with patience and good humour and for the way he has straddled two very different cultures and two very different processes. I would also like to thank John Segers for the long hours of frustrating work involved in producing a well written and well structured document from the amorphous scratchings he inherited. Its a thankless task being an ITU editor and I think John deserves a special thanks, particularly for the 48 hours or more that he went without sleep during the meeting to get the final version of the document ready. Despite all these problems, I believe we will see a lot more of this type of co- operation. Why, because its the only approach that makes sense. The market demands interoperability in the area of VoIP and this can only be achieved by collaboration between the two Standards bodies involved. Going forward, I would suggest that an MOU is drawn up early in the process not at the end. A detailed MOU is not something to apologise for, its just good business practice, and a practice that results in the minimum of misunderstandings and mistrust. Finally, let's not let the process(es) on each side get in the way of progress. I think the less process involved the better. A document should be approved when consensus agree its ready for approval. Two sets of beaurocratic hurdles don't help matters, they just slow things down. Mike Buckley ____________________ Begin Original Message ___________________________ Date: Sun Feb 27 19:43:19 -0500 2000 From: internet!NORTELNETWORKS.COM!taylor (Tom-PT Taylor) Subject: In Defense Of Cooperation To: internet!MAILBAG.INTEL.COM!ITU-SG16 Content-Type: multipart Content-Length: 7439 Paul Jones used the term "H.248/Megaco fiasco", and Dale Skran was quite intemperate in his criticism of the joint effort when he spoke in Geneva. I was not in a position to raise much of a defense there, because it would have conflicted with Glen's positioning of the H.248 work as stable. Now that that issue is water under the bridge, I would like to suggest that it really has been quite a successful project. I don't think we should go at it in quite the same way in the future, but we should not come away totally discouraged about the prospects for IETF/ITU-T cooperation. Here are bases for my conclusion: We have been technically successful, and what we have created is better than it would have been if created in either body separately. To be specific, we retained a great deal of the thinking and experience which went into MGCP, but escaped the limitations MGCP's connection model imposed on the use of different bearer types and multiple media. There is a perception that the IETF decision model is lacking because so much had to be done at the ITU-T meetings. However, the grueling effort put in at the latter resulted partly because of fundamental conflict to which Q.13-14 has been unaccustomed (Monterey and much of Red Bank in particular) and partly because there was so much to cover. This may have given the impression that the IETF didn't do anything on their watch, but we did work through a lot of material. Moreover, both Q. 14/16 and Megaco made a host of decisions which have shaped the final protocol. I have pleaded guilty to a failure to complete IETF process in timely fashion. There was a brief window of opportunity in early December when it seemed that the list was quieting down. If I had made Last Call at that point, the long list of issues which was contributed into the Geneva meeting would instead have been forced into the open at an early enough point that IETF process could still have been completed in time for the Geneva meeting. I consider this to be a tactical failure, in that real work was done in the intervening month and a half, and the protocol specification is the better for it. We have come to a point where SG 16 is thoroughly mistrustful of the IETF as a partner, and has shown this distrust by negotiating a contract for further progress on H.248/Megaco down to the last detail. The pity is that I could see that SG 16 was overly anxious to do its part, from Santiago onwards. We were not really ready for determination at that point, and we were not ready for decision coming out of Red Bank. I can understand that SG 16 feels betrayed because the IETF was not finished in time, but the fact is that the job was bigger than the schedule allowed for. This is why, if I am ever involved in a project like this again, I will insist that the IETF and ITU-T working together create an IETF Proposed Standard before determination ever happens. The opportunity for false expectations and artificially tight deadlines will thus never arise, and both sides will be the happier for it. Tom Taylor Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor) Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

1 0

Re: In Defense Of Cooperation
by Scott Bradner 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

thanks for the review Scott

1 0

H.323 Annex D
by Francois Audet 27 Feb '00

27 Feb '00

Hi, I'm not sure who is editor of H.323 Annex D, but... It seems that there is no reference in Annex D of what version of H.323 and H.245 is required for the procedures to work. There is no way to indicate T.38 or even support of UDP vs. TCP transport in H.245v2. I think the answer is that H.245v4 or later is required. Perhaps somebody can clarify if this is correct. In any case, we definitively need to specify in H.323 Annex D which version of H.245 is required... ----- François Audet Tel:+1 408 565 5675 mailto:audet@NortelNetworks.com <mailto:audet@NortelNetworks.com> Nortel Networks Fax:+1 408 565 2375 http://www.NortelNetworks.com <http://www.nortelnetworks.com/>

3 3

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 27 Feb '00

27 Feb '00

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 > >>

4 4

H.450 Enabled App Server
by David Hoke 27 Feb '00

27 Feb '00

Technical Group Members, I am building a Global Ipbx service based on H.323 and hope to use H.450 as the basis for transferring calls among media processing applications (i.e. Voicemail, Auto Attendant etc) as well as stations. I seek an applications media processing gateway that would have H.323/H.450 on the VoIP side and ECTF (S.100 and H.1xx) or equivalent on the application side... like a Dialogic DM3 but with H.450 and no built-in trunk connections. I want to gateway to DSP based applications not trunks. I want to avoid the common VoIP/CTI work around which requires converting VoIP to a trunk call then locally patching the trunk to app servers. In this way I could immediately use existing CTI applications via the iPBX service without using inefficient work arounds. Please help identify specified product or make alternate suggestions for achieving the same result. Thank You, David Hoke CTO ViaWorldNet 1 Meadowood Rd Carriage House Rosemont, PA 19010 USA davidh(a)publicinternetcorp.com 1-610-331-6010

1 0

Missing text in H.341
by Sakae OKUBO 27 Feb '00

27 Feb '00

Dear H.341 MIB experts, Please respond to the attached request. This is the last opportunity to correct the text of H.341 which was decided in May 1999. 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 *********************************************************** From: "Trabulsi, Sami" <sami.trabulsi(a)itu.int> To: "Okubo, Sakae (TIES)" <Sakae.Okubo(a)ties.itu.int>,"'irina(a)ennovatenetworks.com'" <irina(a)ennovatenetworks.com> Cc: "Freundlich, Glen (TIES)" <Glen.Freundlich(a)ties.itu.int>,"Bigi, Fabio" <Fabio.Bigi(a)itu.int> Subject: FW: Missing text in H.341 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:10:04 +0100 Dear Ms. Suconick, Dear Mr. Okubo Dear Mr. Maeng, As TSB is in the process of H.341 publication, I made a quick comparison of different occurences of the structure. It seems that just one line is missing. The wording of this line could be the following (shown in upper case letters): h320McuTerminalStatsTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF H320McuTerminalStatsTableEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table contains information about entities that are CONNECTED TO THE ENTITY. IT IS A LIST OF CONNECTED TERMINALS. The number of entries equals to the number of terminals." ::= { h320McuTerminal 2 } Could you please correct/confirm/complete this structure ? Best regards Sami Trabulsi TSB - editing department +41 22 730 5000 Email: sami.trabulsi(a)itu.int -----Original Message----- From: Sakae OKUBO [mailto:sakae.okubo@ties.itu.int] Sent: vendredi, 18. f $B;W (Brier 2000 18:31 To: irina(a)ennovatenetworks.com Cc: Glen Freundlich; Fabio Bigi Subject: Missing text in H.341 Dear Ms. Irina Suconick, Dear Mr. Joon Maeng, ITU-TSB is going to publish H.341 decided in Satiago last May. The following syntax is missing some text after "that are" in the middle: ---------- h320McuTerminalMCUPhoneNumber OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..25)) MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The MCU phone number." ::= { h320McuTerminalStatusTableEntry 11 } h320McuTerminalStatsTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF H320McuTerminalStatsTableEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table contains information about entities that are The number of entries equals to the number of terminals." ::= { h320McuTerminal 2 } h320McuTerminalStatsTableEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX H320McuTerminalStatsTableEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "It contains objects that describe a terminal." INDEX { h320McuTerminalId } ::= { h320McuTerminalStatsTable 1 } ---------- I tried to find if there is an answer in the past documents, but failed. Could you please advise me of the missing text as soon as possible, by next Wednesday at the latest? Otherwise H.341 will be published as it is. 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

Please upload the decided/determined/approved texts
by Sakae OKUBO 27 Feb '00

27 Feb '00

Dear Editors, Could you please upload your documents of decision, determination or approval at the /Incoming of the PictureTel ftp site? Please make an announce through the reflector when you have uploaded your documents. 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 ***********************************************************

6 5