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

Re: [Mobility]:Ideas from phone conference on scenarios
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Hi, Steve: You are right that the situation will look like scenarios you have proposed in this email. We would appreciate any Ericsoon's proposals regarding this. It has been long overdue to have something from Ericsson's. We also discussed this in the SG 16 in Feb'00 and got assurances from Ericsson they would bring some contributions. Yet, it is NOT too late. (by the way AT&T contributions also provided many of those scenarios). Please note that a domain consists of a single or more zones. A zone may have many networks (e.g., IP network addresses). A mobile entity may have its home and foreign network in its home zone as well. >From the conference call, it was clear that we may focus our discussion with a very simple case first. If anyone else has any thoughts, please, like Steve, let us know. We appreciate Steve's inputs. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Terrill [mailto:stephen.terrill@ERICSSON.COM] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 3:01 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: [Mobility]:Ideas from phone conference on scenarios Hi All, After the phone conference today, I think that we need to cover the following for the "All-H.323 Scenario). A(home) -> B(home), A & B from same domain A(home) -> B(home), A & B from different domain A(home) -> B(roaming), A & B from same domain A(home) -> B(roaming), A & B from different domain A(roaming) -> B(home), A & B from same domain A(roaming) -> B(home), A & B from different domain A(roaming) -> B(roaming), A & B from same domain A(roaming) -> B(roaming), A & B from different domain This could be represented as follows in the document. xx.1 Registraion xx.1.1 Registration from Home domain xx.1.2 Registration from romaing domain xx.2 Location Update xx.2.1 xx.3 Call establishment xx.3.1 Call originating from terminal at home domain xx.3.2 Call originating from terminal at roaming domain xx.3.3 Call terminating to terminal at home domain xx.3.4 Call terminating to terminal at roaming domain xx.3.5 Call to PSTN from terminal at home domain xx.3.6 Call to PSTN from terminal at roaming domain. Well, this is what I was trying to say in the phone conference. Regards, ..//Steve

1 0

Re: Use of IRR by Gateways
by Francois Audet 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

> BTW, this is an example of why it is important for > contributors and editors > to avoid using the passive tense in Recommendations. They > should also be > conscious of the verbs they use, e.g., "shall" is the ITU's > only normative > verb, "is" is not. It depends what the definition of "is" is ;^)

1 0

Initial CFP: IP Telecom Services Workshop 2000
by IPTS 2000 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

[Please accept our apologies for multiple copies of this call.] ------------- PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS --------------- IP TELECOM SERVICES WORKSHOP 2000 (IPTS 2000) co-located with Fall 2000 Voice on the Net (VON) organized by AT&T Labs Research pulver.com Cobb Galleria, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A September 11, 2000 submission deadline: June 16, 2000 http://www.research.att.com/conf/ipts2000/ ----------------------------------------------------------- IPTS 2000 is a new workshop dedicated to the important, emerging field of IP Telecom Services research. In contrast to the services available on the PSTN, a new world of telecom services is possible on an IP-based infrastructure. This world presents new challenges for service development, deployment and management. This one-day workshop will serve as a forum for the dissemination of research relating to these challenges. The IPTS 2000 Program Committee invites submission of papers on substantial, original and previously unpublished research in IP telecom services, including, but not limited to: - service architectures (e.g. AIN, SoftSwitch, JAIN, Parlay, DFC) - service creation environments - protocols, standards and interoperability (e.g. H.323, SIP, MGCP, Megaco/H.248, etc.) - service programming languages - service management - billing, fault tolerance, monitoring - novel services We welcome papers describing original research; position papers describing research interests in the field, work in progress, or future directions of research; project or system descriptions. IMPORTANT DATES June 16, 2000 Submission deadline July 21, 2000 Notification of acceptance August 25, 2000 Final version of papers September 11, 2000 IPTS 2000 PAPER SUBMISSIONS Papers must describe original, previously unpublished work that has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. They must be written in English, not exceeding 6 pages including figures, tables and references in 10-12 point font on 8.5x11-inch (US letter) paper. The first page must include an abstract of up to 200 words, keywords, and email address of the corresponding author. All papers must be submitted electronically unless specifically approved by the Workshop Co-Chairs. Submissions in PostScript or PDF format should be sent to mailto:ipts2000@research.att.com. Authors of accepted papers are expected to present their contribution at the workshop. The proceedings will be published in hardcopy and on the web. REVIEW PROCEDURE All submissions will be subject to academic peer review by the IPTS 2000 Program Committee under the chairmanship of the Workshop Co-Chairs. Each paper will receive three written reviews, and reviews will be returned to the authors. The Workshop Co-Chairs have final authority over the review process and all decisions relating to acceptance of papers. Review criteria include originality of ideas, technical soundness, significance of results, and quality of presentation. CONFERENCE VENUE AND RELATED EVENTS IPTS 2000 will be held on September 11, 2000 in Atlanta, Georgia. The workshop will be co-located with Fall 2000 Voice on the Net (VON). Details about Fall 2000 VON can be found at http://pulver.com. IPTS 2000 is organized by AT&T Labs Research (http://www.research.att.com) and pulver.com (http://pulver.com). WORKSHOP CO-CHAIRS Greg Bond, AT&T Labs Research Eric Cheung, AT&T Labs Research PROGRAM COMMITTEE Mauricio Arango, Sun Microsystems Labs Joanne Atlee, University of Waterloo Ralph Blumenthal, Daewoo Telecom Scott Hoffpauir, BroadSoft Evan Magill, University of Strathclyde Peter Mataga, dynamicsoft Bernie Pagurek, Carleton University Jonathan Rosenberg, dynamicsoft Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University Greg Utas, Nortel Networks Pamela Zave, AT&T Labs Research FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION http://www.research.att.com/conf/ipts2000

1 0

New web site Packetizer.com
by Paul E. Jones 26 Mar '00

26 Mar '00

Folks, Paul Long and I have combined the H.323 information from our personal web sites at a new domain, http://www.packetizer.com/. This not-for-profit site is devoted to packet-switched conversational protocols, serving the end-user, engineer, and executive, although the focus is on the engineer. For obvious reasons (if you know anything at all about us), we will initially have much more information on H.323, but we intend to gather information on other protocols including SIP, MGCP, and H.248, if only as links to other online resources. Contributors Wanted This is a cooperative effort. Besides announcing the site, this email invites _your_ input. If you have any information regarding these or other packet-switched conversational protocols that you can share and would be of interest to others, please forward it to us so that we can make it public on this web site. We will attribute the work to you unless you request us not to. We provide the web space, bandwidth, organization, indexing, and focus; you provide information that is in the public domain or whose copyright you or your organization own and does not contain trade secrets. We don't want to get sued; you don't want to get fired. :-) Your contribution can be as simple as a single tip for solving a particularly nasty implementation issue or clarification of some aspect of a standard or as involved as a complete tutorial on a particular protocol. See the list below for ideas. Conversely, if there is something that you would like to see, please let us know. Maybe we can find someone to write something up or maybe we can maintain a "wish list" on the site for future contributions. Contributions Here is a list of the types of contributions for which we are looking. It is likely that you already have things like this lying around somewhere that you had to put together for your own use or use within your organization. Let's share! - Summary - Primer - Tutorial - Implementation guide - Implementation notes - Cheat sheet - Glossary - Protocol comparisons - Links to other online resources - Description of how to participate, e.g., how to subscribe to the email reflectors and location of reflector archives - List of standards organization(s) working in an area, with contact and membership info - Diagrams - FAQ - Upcoming event sponsored by your company or institution, e.g., seminar or panel discussion Best Regards, Paul E. Jones Editor of the H.323 Recommendation

1 0

[Mobility]:Ideas from phone conference on scenarios
by Stephen Terrill 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Hi All, After the phone conference today, I think that we need to cover the following for the "All-H.323 Scenario). A(home) -> B(home), A & B from same domain A(home) -> B(home), A & B from different domain A(home) -> B(roaming), A & B from same domain A(home) -> B(roaming), A & B from different domain A(roaming) -> B(home), A & B from same domain A(roaming) -> B(home), A & B from different domain A(roaming) -> B(roaming), A & B from same domain A(roaming) -> B(roaming), A & B from different domain This could be represented as follows in the document. xx.1 Registraion xx.1.1 Registration from Home domain xx.1.2 Registration from romaing domain xx.2 Location Update xx.2.1 xx.3 Call establishment xx.3.1 Call originating from terminal at home domain xx.3.2 Call originating from terminal at roaming domain xx.3.3 Call terminating to terminal at home domain xx.3.4 Call terminating to terminal at roaming domain xx.3.5 Call to PSTN from terminal at home domain xx.3.6 Call to PSTN from terminal at roaming domain. Well, this is what I was trying to say in the phone conference. Regards, ..//Steve

1 0

AW: Doubt about CallLinkage structure in IRR message
by <Karl Klaghofer> 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

I agree with Aseem. D.392 from Geneva had this new field correctly qualified as OPTIONAL in any message it appears (including IRR). Besides H.323v3 Impl Guide, this error slipped in during editing phase also to H.225.0v4 and needs to be corrected here as well. Regards, Karl Klaghofer Siemens > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@ties.itu.int] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 22. März 2000 03:23 > An: Aseem Agarwal > Cc: h323implementors(a)imtc.org; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com; Klaghofer > Karl ICN SIB NL D1 > Betreff: Re: Doubt about CallLinkage structure in IRR message > > Aseem, > > That is definitely a typographical error-- the callLinkage field should > definitely contain the OPTIONAL modifier. I will make a correction to > this > and make mention of it at the next Question 13/16 meeting. > > Thanks for pointing that out. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aseem Agarwal" <aseem(a)trillium.com> > To: <paul.jones(a)ties.itu.int> > Cc: <h323implementors(a)imtc.org> > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:15 PM > Subject: Doubt about CallLinkage structure in IRR message > > > > Hi Paul, > > Implementers' Guide for H.225V3 (H323V3_IG_0002.zip) has added > > CallLinkage structure to perCallInfo in IRR as a mandatory IE. > > > > Since the Call Linkage is an optional feature, it should be an > > optional IE. Is this a mistake or there is a reason behind it? > > Kindly clarify. > > > > thanks, > > aseem(a)trillium.com > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ------------------------------ > Please send E-mail to contact(a)imtc.org <mailto:contact@imtc.org> to > subscribe or unsubscribe from this list > ------------------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -

2 1

FW: [H.323 Mob] Mar 23: Conference Bridge Info
by Jaakko Sundquist 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Hello all, Mr. Thibault called me asking for the conference bridge number, so I'm sending it to the list. I hope Mr. Thibault gets this in time (also I did not find Mr. Thibaults email-address, so I'm sending this to the whole list). ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * ------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: EXT Senthil Sengodan [mailto:senthil.sengodan@NOKIA.COM] Sent: 21. March 2000 4:48 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: [H.323 Mob] Mar 23: Conference Bridge Info Folks, The following is the conference call bridge details for the upcoming H.323 mobility ad-hoc group call. As has been done for the previous calls, the conference bridge is hosted/sponsored by IMTC to help expedite the H.323 mobility work. Date: March 23, 2000 Time: 8:00 AM to 10:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time (PST)) Conference call Bridge # +1 (916)-356-9200 Reservation Number = 1-297557 Passcode = 8291124 Note: Once you call into the conference call bridge number, first enter the reservation number first digit and then wait for the voice prompt to enter the passcode and then enter the complete passcode in order to join the conference call. - Senthil -----Original Message----- From: EXT Guram Paul-LPG019 [mailto:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 3:53 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Mob ah hoc group meeting on 23 March Hi mob members Please note that there is a conf call for 23 March at 8 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, 4 p.m. UK time. Can Senthil Sengodan (Nokia) please arrange for the conference bridge and supply details for the dialling number etc. The agenda is as indicated before: 1. Brief Introductions and agreement of agenda 2. Mobility Scenarios for Annex H: MD011 (Nokia) MD012 (AT&T) MD013 (Intel) 3. Adoption of the first scenario to study (in its entirety) 4. Issues related to the progress on Annex I, and H.246 Annex E 5. Report back from other mobility groups (3GPP, 3G.IP, IMT2000, MWIF, etc.). (this will be given by any participant who attends/has access to the appropriate group, and information will be that relevant to our work) 6. Any other business 7. Agenda and date of next conference call I will put the contributions MD011 (from Jaakko Sundquist), MD012 (from Radhika Roy), and MD013 (from Vineet Kumar) onto the server tomorrow. Paul

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:] Procedures & Current Status of the H.323 Mob ilit y Ad Hoc Group
by Jaakko Sundquist 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Hi again, I just forgot to mention one of our working procedures: * All contributions for the teleconferences must be submitted one week before the teleconference. ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * ------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: EXT Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com] Sent: 23. March 2000 14:38 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: [H.323Mobility:] Procedures & Current Status of the H.323 Mobilit y Ad Hoc Group Hi all, We are going to have the first teleconference since the February meeting today and I thought it would be a good idea to go through the status of the mobility work as well as the procedures we have agreed to follow with this work. I know this is quite short notice for today's teleconference (especially for those in the west coast of the USA), but I wouldn't want to spend too much time on these issues in the teleconference, so I'm sending them by mail. Comment, if you wish! Status of the H.323 Mobility work: * A sceleton for the H.323 Annex H has been agreed by the ad hoc group. This sceleton is by no means the final "table of contents" for the annex, but at least it gives guidelines for the future work as well as makes it easier for the contributors to point out the specific parts of the annex that they want to address in their contributions. * H.246 Annex E was determined in the February meeting in Geneva. Still the annex is not quite ready and contributions will surely be welcome (I feel I can say this much on behalf of the editor of the annex, Mr. Reddy). Procedures to be followed by the ad hoc group members: * We have chosen Mr. Paul Guram of Motorola as the unofficial moderator for the teleconferences between the Geneva and Osaka meetings. Mr Guram will assign the MD-numbers for the contributions to the teleconferences as well as act as the chairman during the conferences. We acknowledge the fact that neither the ad hoc group nor Mr. Guram as its unofficial moderator has any formal position inside ITU, but for the sake of progressing with the mobility work, the ad hoc group members (i.e. anyone who wishes to take part in the work) are encouraged to treat Mr. Guram as the chairman in the teleconferences. * At some point, we decided to include a prefix "[H.323Mobility:]" in the beginning of the subject of each mail sent to the SG16 reflector concerning the mobility issues. I think this is a good practice and we should continue following it. * We will agree on the issues to be discussed in each teleconference beforehand. These issues will be discussed first and if there is enough time for other issues (which in general, I really doubt), they will be bought up afterwards. I.e. the issue for today's teleconference was supposed to be the identification of Tiphon-style scenarios for H.323 Mobility work (and agreeing for them to be listed in the H.323 Annex H) as well as choosing one of these scenarios as the first one to be addressed. It seems, however, that only one contribution for today's teleconference is addressing these issues. Suggestion for the future work schedule: * We will hopefully be able to agree on the scenarios today and choose the all-H.323 (or all-IP, whichever it will be called) as the first scenario to be addressed (this really has been the implicit first case so far anyway, but we probably need to formalize that). * Two contributions dealing with the "Locating a Gatekeeper" -issues have been brought forward for today's teleconference. Since this issue was not in the agenda for today, we will need to come back to it later (for other companies to be able to contribute on this), although I presume we will have time to discuss about the contributions today. Thus, I would suggest that these information flows would be one of the issues for the next teleconference. * Another issue I would suggest for the next teleconference is to identify first the typical composite network elements (i.e. "boxes" including a set of the functionalities defined in the H.323 Annex H architecture). By doing this we would find the most relevant interfaces to be addressed and standardized first (quite the same way as H.225.0 Annex G has defined some of the interfaces in the first version, but not all). I guess that is all for now. I'll try to send some comments for the Intel and AT&T contributions already before the teleconference if I have time, but you'll be hearing from me in the teleconference at the latest... ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * ------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:] Procedures & Current Status of the H.323 Mob ilit y Ad Hoc Group
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Paul: Is it possible to send a draft agenda of today's conference call via email now so that we can minimize our discussion on agenda? I thought that you would send some emails so that we can streamline our discussion without spending too much time on procedural issues right during the conference call. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group +1 732 420 1580 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 7:38 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] Procedures & Current Status of the H.323 > Mobilit y Ad Hoc Group > > Hi all, > > We are going to have the first teleconference since the February meeting > today and I thought it would be a good idea to go through the status of > the > mobility work as well as the procedures we have agreed to follow with this > work. I know this is quite short notice for today's teleconference > (especially for those in the west coast of the USA), but I wouldn't want > to > spend too much time on these issues in the teleconference, so I'm sending > them by mail. Comment, if you wish! > > Status of the H.323 Mobility work: > * A sceleton for the H.323 Annex H has been agreed by the ad hoc > group. This sceleton is by no means the final "table of contents" for the > annex, but at least it gives guidelines for the future work as well as > makes > it easier for the contributors to point out the specific parts of the > annex > that they want to address in their contributions. > * H.246 Annex E was determined in the February meeting in Geneva. > Still the annex is not quite ready and contributions will surely be > welcome > (I feel I can say this much on behalf of the editor of the annex, Mr. > Reddy). > > Procedures to be followed by the ad hoc group members: > * We have chosen Mr. Paul Guram of Motorola as the unofficial > moderator for the teleconferences between the Geneva and Osaka meetings. > Mr > Guram will assign the MD-numbers for the contributions to the > teleconferences as well as act as the chairman during the conferences. We > acknowledge the fact that neither the ad hoc group nor Mr. Guram as its > unofficial moderator has any formal position inside ITU, but for the sake > of > progressing with the mobility work, the ad hoc group members (i.e. anyone > who wishes to take part in the work) are encouraged to treat Mr. Guram as > the chairman in the teleconferences. > * At some point, we decided to include a prefix "[H.323Mobility:]" > in > the beginning of the subject of each mail sent to the SG16 reflector > concerning the mobility issues. I think this is a good practice and we > should continue following it. > * We will agree on the issues to be discussed in each teleconference > beforehand. These issues will be discussed first and if there is enough > time > for other issues (which in general, I really doubt), they will be bought > up > afterwards. I.e. the issue for today's teleconference was supposed to be > the > identification of Tiphon-style scenarios for H.323 Mobility work (and > agreeing for them to be listed in the H.323 Annex H) as well as choosing > one > of these scenarios as the first one to be addressed. It seems, however, > that > only one contribution for today's teleconference is addressing these > issues. > > Suggestion for the future work schedule: > * We will hopefully be able to agree on the scenarios today and > choose > the all-H.323 (or all-IP, whichever it will be called) as the first > scenario > to be addressed (this really has been the implicit first case so far > anyway, > but we probably need to formalize that). > * Two contributions dealing with the "Locating a Gatekeeper" -issues > have been brought forward for today's teleconference. Since this issue was > not in the agenda for today, we will need to come back to it later (for > other companies to be able to contribute on this), although I presume we > will have time to discuss about the contributions today. Thus, I would > suggest that these information flows would be one of the issues for the > next > teleconference. > * Another issue I would suggest for the next teleconference is to > identify first the typical composite network elements (i.e. "boxes" > including a set of the functionalities defined in the H.323 Annex H > architecture). By doing this we would find the most relevant interfaces to > be addressed and standardized first (quite the same way as H.225.0 Annex G > has defined some of the interfaces in the first version, but not all). > > > I guess that is all for now. I'll try to send some comments for the Intel > and AT&T contributions already before the teleconference if I have time, > but > you'll be hearing from me in the teleconference at the latest... > > ------------------------------------------------ > Jaakko Sundquist * > +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! > jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * > ------------------------------------------------

1 0

[H.323Mobility:] Procedures & Current Status of the H.323 Mobilit y Ad Hoc Group
by Jaakko Sundquist 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Hi all, We are going to have the first teleconference since the February meeting today and I thought it would be a good idea to go through the status of the mobility work as well as the procedures we have agreed to follow with this work. I know this is quite short notice for today's teleconference (especially for those in the west coast of the USA), but I wouldn't want to spend too much time on these issues in the teleconference, so I'm sending them by mail. Comment, if you wish! Status of the H.323 Mobility work: * A sceleton for the H.323 Annex H has been agreed by the ad hoc group. This sceleton is by no means the final "table of contents" for the annex, but at least it gives guidelines for the future work as well as makes it easier for the contributors to point out the specific parts of the annex that they want to address in their contributions. * H.246 Annex E was determined in the February meeting in Geneva. Still the annex is not quite ready and contributions will surely be welcome (I feel I can say this much on behalf of the editor of the annex, Mr. Reddy). Procedures to be followed by the ad hoc group members: * We have chosen Mr. Paul Guram of Motorola as the unofficial moderator for the teleconferences between the Geneva and Osaka meetings. Mr Guram will assign the MD-numbers for the contributions to the teleconferences as well as act as the chairman during the conferences. We acknowledge the fact that neither the ad hoc group nor Mr. Guram as its unofficial moderator has any formal position inside ITU, but for the sake of progressing with the mobility work, the ad hoc group members (i.e. anyone who wishes to take part in the work) are encouraged to treat Mr. Guram as the chairman in the teleconferences. * At some point, we decided to include a prefix "[H.323Mobility:]" in the beginning of the subject of each mail sent to the SG16 reflector concerning the mobility issues. I think this is a good practice and we should continue following it. * We will agree on the issues to be discussed in each teleconference beforehand. These issues will be discussed first and if there is enough time for other issues (which in general, I really doubt), they will be bought up afterwards. I.e. the issue for today's teleconference was supposed to be the identification of Tiphon-style scenarios for H.323 Mobility work (and agreeing for them to be listed in the H.323 Annex H) as well as choosing one of these scenarios as the first one to be addressed. It seems, however, that only one contribution for today's teleconference is addressing these issues. Suggestion for the future work schedule: * We will hopefully be able to agree on the scenarios today and choose the all-H.323 (or all-IP, whichever it will be called) as the first scenario to be addressed (this really has been the implicit first case so far anyway, but we probably need to formalize that). * Two contributions dealing with the "Locating a Gatekeeper" -issues have been brought forward for today's teleconference. Since this issue was not in the agenda for today, we will need to come back to it later (for other companies to be able to contribute on this), although I presume we will have time to discuss about the contributions today. Thus, I would suggest that these information flows would be one of the issues for the next teleconference. * Another issue I would suggest for the next teleconference is to identify first the typical composite network elements (i.e. "boxes" including a set of the functionalities defined in the H.323 Annex H architecture). By doing this we would find the most relevant interfaces to be addressed and standardized first (quite the same way as H.225.0 Annex G has defined some of the interfaces in the first version, but not all). I guess that is all for now. I'll try to send some comments for the Intel and AT&T contributions already before the teleconference if I have time, but you'll be hearing from me in the teleconference at the latest... ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.com * ------------------------------------------------

1 0