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

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Jaakko Sundquist 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi Radhika et al, There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for mobility. The URL is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I suggest that we will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have some naming convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents. Maybe Paul should assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the teleconferences... - Jaakko Sundquist -----Original Message----- From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi, Jaakko: I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my earlier email. I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys decided where the incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and where the URL would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, please let all of us know soon. Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and time as well? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi all, > > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H that were > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc mobility group. Included > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as well as the > meeting > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in Geneva. > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left to the VLF-section > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion > it > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the document I am > sending > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in Geneva, but I will > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of the draft annex. > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite unnecessary to > argue > about these, the TMSI is already included in the proposed new alias > address > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, already needed in > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the mobility problem. I > would > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as really the VLF we > have > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the identifiers TMSI, > etc. > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. However, it might be > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers mentioned in the VLF (and > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > - 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. > ------------------------------------------------------- << File: > GenevaMobility.zip >>

1 0

Re: H.248 most recent document
by John Segers 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Zacharias, Today I saw this email message on the megaco list. The Megaco248v15tov16diff.doc can presumably be found on Nortel's site (ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/) John Segers -- John Segers email: jsegers(a)lucent.com Lucent Technologies Room HE 306 Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi, Jaakko: I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my earlier email. I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys decided where the incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and where the URL would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, please let all of us know soon. Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and time as well? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi all, > > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H that were > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc mobility group. Included > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as well as the > meeting > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in Geneva. > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left to the VLF-section > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion > it > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the document I am > sending > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in Geneva, but I will > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of the draft annex. > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite unnecessary to > argue > about these, the TMSI is already included in the proposed new alias > address > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, already needed in > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the mobility problem. I > would > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as really the VLF we > have > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the identifiers TMSI, > etc. > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. However, it might be > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers mentioned in the VLF (and > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > - 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. > ------------------------------------------------------- << File: > GenevaMobility.zip >>

1 0

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi, Orit and Joon: I am glad that we got the views of Joon. We all had long conversations before, during, and after the SG16 meeting. If needed, we may also arrange a conference call among ourselves. Propose time can be 11 AM - 1 PM EST USA and probable dates are 2/24, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3. I will arrange the conf bridge if we all agree to have a conf call. Pl. let me know. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Joon Maeng [SMTP:joon_maeng@vtel.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 5:13 PM To: 'Orit Levin'; Tom-PT Taylor; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion Hi Orit. You document seems to be a very good starting point. Before we start making any comments to your document, I'd like to see if we can agree on what we are going to work on. I am talking about defining the scope based on the requirements. I am sure my interest is different form others. Can we insert the scope section in you document and discuss what we are going to work on (in the first phase and so on..) before we get into details? The scope will help us in building the consensus quickly. Cheers. Regards, Joon > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 5:00 PM > To: 'Orit Levin'; Tom-PT Taylor; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; > Paul E. Jones; 'schulzrinne(a)cs.columbia.edu'; > 'bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr'; 'stephen.terrill(a)ericsson.com'; > 'jo(a)teles.com' > Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion > > Hi, Orit: > > You are just right on time. I appreciate this. > > Please provide me couple of days (may be 2 more days). I would also like > to include Henning S., Bahman M, Stephen T. and others in this mail. > > My understanding is that you are willing to work as an editor of this work > in the SG16. > > Henning, just to let you know that SG16 has taken this as a work item. > > Going forward, we would also like to take this issue to the IETF to open a > work item there as well. Tom indicated that Scott B. likes to see that > there is enough support for this work item in the IETF before he considers > whether it is worthwhile to open a new WG or to be a part of another WG. > Tom might elaborate on this. > > I plan to attend the next IETF meeting in March'00. If we all plan to go > there, we may push for this work in the IETF as well. > > I would request that all of us provide comments on this. If needed, we all > may be the co-author of this document to show that we have a wide support > for this paper. > > By the way, the next Q.13-14/16 Rapporteur meeting to be held in OSAKA, > Japan (May 15-19) and any company can be the co-author of this document > irrespective of the country of origin. Even Henning can also join in this > contribution although Columbia University is not a member of the ITU-T > because a Rap. can allow anyone to participate in the meeting. > > Let us start this with a great cooperative mode. > > 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: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 4:17 PM > To: Tom-PT Taylor; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; > Paul E. Jones > Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion > > Hello all! > I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking > discussion/work as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look > into it, comment, provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. > Feel free to forward it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT > putting this on the SG16 mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves > outside H.323 community before we have an understanding on the agenda in > general. After the first round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 > mailing list. > 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 <http://www.radvision.com> > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> << File: > H323-Internet.zip >>

2 1

[H.323Mobility:]
by Jaakko Sundquist 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi all, I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H that were accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc mobility group. Included are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as well as the meeting minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in Geneva. As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left to the VLF-section of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion it has created. I did not, however, take it off from the document I am sending here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in Geneva, but I will remove the location area from the subsequent versions of the draft annex. As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite unnecessary to argue about these, the TMSI is already included in the proposed new alias address type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, already needed in H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the mobility problem. I would see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as really the VLF we have defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the identifiers TMSI, etc. would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. However, it might be suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers mentioned in the VLF (and other) section(s) are not mandatory. <<GenevaMobility.zip>> - 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

RE: H.323-SIP Discusssion
by Francois Audet 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

This looks good. I would probably change the term "H.323-Internet" to something else. "Internet" sounds a little vague. On thing that should be mentioned in there is H.245-SDP interworking. In the case of addressing, we might want to avoid having different translations of SIP telephone numbers (E.164) to H.323 publicNumber, URLs, dialledDigits... At the very least, we should explain the meaning. I'm not that interested in mapping from H.450 to SIP. However, the "third party pause and re-routing" procedures would be a good candidate. Then there is in-band tones and anouncements, busy, etc. Also, the role of gk-routed vs. sip proxy server, and direct-routed vs. sip redirection server. Also, we should thing of which versions of SIP and H.323 we should consider. My personal preference would be to only look at the latest (H.323v4). François Audet -----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:17 PM To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904:EXCH]; rrroy; martinze; ranga.dendi; joon_maeng; Audet, Francois [SC9:4K02:EXCH]; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion Hello all! I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it, comment, provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to forward it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the SG16 mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the first round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list. 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 <http://www.radvision.com> orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com>

1 0

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Joon Maeng 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Hi Orit. You document seems to be a very good starting point. Before we start making any comments to your document, I'd like to see if we can agree on what we are going to work on. I am talking about defining the scope based on the requirements. I am sure my interest is different form others. Can we insert the scope section in you document and discuss what we are going to work on (in the first phase and so on..) before we get into details? The scope will help us in building the consensus quickly. Cheers. Regards, Joon -----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 3:17 PM To: Tom-PT Taylor; rrroy(a)att.com; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion Hello all! I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it, comment, provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to forward it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the SG16 mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the first round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list. 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 <http://www.radvision.com> orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com>

1 0

H.323-SIP Discusssion
by Orit Levin 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Hello all! I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it, comment, provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to forward it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the SG16 mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the first round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list. 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

Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729
by Nancy-M Greene 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Quoting from H.248 Appendix A, middle of the 2nd paragraph: "For example, G.711A-law is called PCMA in the SDP, and is assigned profile 0. G.723 is profile 4, and H263 is profile 34. See also http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/rtp-parameters " The URL above is supposed to be an up to date list, it has G.723.1 but it does not have info on the G.729 profile. Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com > ---------- > From: Frank Derks[SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:30 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > > H.225.0 specifies that the payload types for G.723.1 and G.729 are 4 and > 18 respectively. > When I take a look at the registered payload types at the IANA, these two > codecs are > not listed. > > Does this mean that the IANA list is not up-to-date or that these codecs > are not officially > registered. > > Frank > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | > Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | > Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | > |1200 JD Hilversum | > |The Netherlands | > ----------------------------------------------------| > E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | > WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | > ----------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex N draft
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Hi, Audet: For the existing ATM QOS and RSVP in H.323, there should be the exact mapping (please see TD-57) because exact parameters are known. There should not be any place for ambiguity to provide the backward compatibility as a minimum. Per your suggestion, if needed, we can also extend our mapping in ATM beyond what H.323 Annex C currently does. For DiffServ, the PHB parameters need to be known to provide the mappings. There are possibilities for ambiguity in DiffServ if the parameters are not well defined. For now, PHBs are yet to be defined clearly in the IETF. More importantly, there is no backward compatibility issue in H.323 for DiffServ. I am not worried about this for now. We may keep this as a place holder (please also see TD-57) for our future work. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [SMTP:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 2:35 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323 Annex N draft > > > H.323 standard has already defined how the lower network > > layer QOS (e.g., > > RSVP [guaranteed, controlled, best effort], ATM QOS [CBR, > > rt-VBR, nrt-VBR, > > ABR, UBR]). > > > > Now, if we define H.323 application layer QOS only without > > defining the > > mapping, this will not provide backward compatibility to the > > existing H.323 > > standard. > > > > This is the concern. > > > > So, the "scope" should include the "mapping" of the H.323 QOS > > to the lower > > network layer QOS. > > I don't think we can define such a mapping. There are many ways to use > ATM. The one we used in Annex C is based on CBR AAL5. AAL1 or AAL2 could > be candidates. VBR is also something to consider. We alse did single > channel adaptation. We could multiplex. There is no reason why we need to > specify the ATM transport and associated QoS mechanism. > > On the diffserv side, I am also not convinced that there is much to say > since network operators are free to use diffserv in any way they see fit. >

1 0