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

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

Hi, Jaakko: Contributions are there: D.354, MD-017, and MD-018. These contributions explain why home/visiting/visited/target zone/GK/network address (Network point of attachment) is needed. I am so sorry to see that you even failed to mention yesterday's email that I sent to Steve where again all benefits were mentioned (7+ points). Is that something missed by any chance? You have pointed out some benefits of home domain in the contest of HLF. These HLF/VLF benefits are coming from the classical type of networking - primarily from the circuit-switched world. There are benefits are almost insginificant unless home/visiting/visited/target zone/GK/network address ainformation is stored in the HLF/VLF as appropriate. It is a NEW world known as packet-switching. Therefore, I do NOT thing people will be achieve the actual benefits unless HLF/VLF is populated with those additional information to manage mobility in the context of home/visited/target domain. If people like to derive benefits of the new woprld, they new to have additional options (please just read the email that was sent by me to Steve. If you miss it, please let me know. I will send you a copy). If someone like yourself do not see the benefits, you are free NOT to use those options. No one will force you to use it. If the users of a service provide like to have those OPTIONS why should it NOT given? So, the people who DO NOT like to use those OPTIONs, we like to see why they are opposing it. So, it is their trun to write contributions why they actually oppose those concepts. So, we would request to use those terms home as suggested (unless it is expalined in bring contributions why they oppose those terms). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:06 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes > > Hi Radhika & Laurent, > > See my comments embedded... > > > > > The contributions and explanations have been provided why > > "Home" is needed > > in the same context of "Home" domain. > > The Home Administrative Domain came about because it seemed a good idea to > bind the subscription of a User to some administrative entity (such as an > operator). At the same time we have defined the HLF as the only place in > which location information about the user can always be found (albeit > clearer definitions about this information are still needed). Thus the > domain containing the HLF of the user was in effect defined as the Home > Administrative Domain of the user. > > > > > If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network > > address, we > > have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place > > of mobility > > whether it is "home" Adm domain. > > I do not follow your reasoning above at all. Concidering a home GK or > zone, > I can understand that they may be needed if the service execution is done > in > the "home" of the user, i.e. all calls for a user would be controlled by > the > same GK, namely the home GK of the user. For service execution in the > Visited Administrative Domain, I do not see any reason, why the concept of > a > home GK would be needed. Furthermore, if a concept is not definitely > needed, > I will not want to define it. I also feel we need to examine and define > the > "service execution in the home environment" or "virtual home environment" > model better, so that everyone understands, what it is all about. > As for the need for a home Network Point of Attachment, I am waiting for > your contribution that clarifies, why we would need it. > > > > > I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word > > home should not > > be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document. > > The point is that so far, if I understand Laurent correctly, neither he or > I > have accepted the concepts of home GK or home Network Point of Attachment. > Those are the terms that we would not like to see in the picture. > > > > > It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, > > they may NOT use > > it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed. > > > > It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress > > unless we are in > > consistent in defining term terms. > > > > I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used. > > > > I do not want to see contributions telling what terms SHOULD NOT be > defined, > I want to see contributions telling why some terms SHOULD be defined. So > far > I haven't seen such contributions on home NPoA and I'm still not sure > about > the home GK either. > > -Jaakko

1 0

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Jaakko Sundquist 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

Hi Radhika & Laurent, See my comments embedded... > > The contributions and explanations have been provided why > "Home" is needed > in the same context of "Home" domain. The Home Administrative Domain came about because it seemed a good idea to bind the subscription of a User to some administrative entity (such as an operator). At the same time we have defined the HLF as the only place in which location information about the user can always be found (albeit clearer definitions about this information are still needed). Thus the domain containing the HLF of the user was in effect defined as the Home Administrative Domain of the user. > > If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network > address, we > have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place > of mobility > whether it is "home" Adm domain. I do not follow your reasoning above at all. Concidering a home GK or zone, I can understand that they may be needed if the service execution is done in the "home" of the user, i.e. all calls for a user would be controlled by the same GK, namely the home GK of the user. For service execution in the Visited Administrative Domain, I do not see any reason, why the concept of a home GK would be needed. Furthermore, if a concept is not definitely needed, I will not want to define it. I also feel we need to examine and define the "service execution in the home environment" or "virtual home environment" model better, so that everyone understands, what it is all about. As for the need for a home Network Point of Attachment, I am waiting for your contribution that clarifies, why we would need it. > > I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word > home should not > be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document. The point is that so far, if I understand Laurent correctly, neither he or I have accepted the concepts of home GK or home Network Point of Attachment. Those are the terms that we would not like to see in the picture. > > It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, > they may NOT use > it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed. > > It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress > unless we are in > consistent in defining term terms. > > I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used. > I do not want to see contributions telling what terms SHOULD NOT be defined, I want to see contributions telling why some terms SHOULD be defined. So far I haven't seen such contributions on home NPoA and I'm still not sure about the home GK either. -Jaakko

2 1

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Guram Paul-LPG019 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

Hi all The reason why the use of the word 'home' is somewhat acceptable to me for use with zone (and hence gatekeeper) is what Jaakko has explained, i.e. a user subscribes to his administrative domain, which is called the home administrative domain. Thus one could extend the use of this word for zone and gatekeeper. Whilst this would seem reasonable, as I understood yesterday, if during further discussions we see no real merit in identifying a zone or gatekeeper with such a label then we will remove 'home' from the figure, i.e. the word home will only have meaning in Annex H when used in home location function, home administrative domain (and later on, when we get to it, virtual home environment). Paul -----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Sent: 18 April 2000 16:06 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes Hi Radhika & Laurent, See my comments embedded... > > The contributions and explanations have been provided why > "Home" is needed > in the same context of "Home" domain. The Home Administrative Domain came about because it seemed a good idea to bind the subscription of a User to some administrative entity (such as an operator). At the same time we have defined the HLF as the only place in which location information about the user can always be found (albeit clearer definitions about this information are still needed). Thus the domain containing the HLF of the user was in effect defined as the Home Administrative Domain of the user. > > If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network > address, we > have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place > of mobility > whether it is "home" Adm domain. I do not follow your reasoning above at all. Concidering a home GK or zone, I can understand that they may be needed if the service execution is done in the "home" of the user, i.e. all calls for a user would be controlled by the same GK, namely the home GK of the user. For service execution in the Visited Administrative Domain, I do not see any reason, why the concept of a home GK would be needed. Furthermore, if a concept is not definitely needed, I will not want to define it. I also feel we need to examine and define the "service execution in the home environment" or "virtual home environment" model better, so that everyone understands, what it is all about. As for the need for a home Network Point of Attachment, I am waiting for your contribution that clarifies, why we would need it. > > I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word > home should not > be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document. The point is that so far, if I understand Laurent correctly, neither he or I have accepted the concepts of home GK or home Network Point of Attachment. Those are the terms that we would not like to see in the picture. > > It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, > they may NOT use > it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed. > > It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress > unless we are in > consistent in defining term terms. > > I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used. > I do not want to see contributions telling what terms SHOULD NOT be defined, I want to see contributions telling why some terms SHOULD be defined. So far I haven't seen such contributions on home NPoA and I'm still not sure about the home GK either. -Jaakko

1 0

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Laurent Thiebaut 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

I support Jaakko's comments: the notion of Home is needed (at least for subscription information storage and for central place that knows which GK/VLF is currently hosting an user: HLF ) In some configurations, service needs to be executed in the Home domain. This does not mean that it has to be executed in a Home CSCF It is not contributions telling "what terms SHOULD NOT be defined", but contributions telling "why some terms SHOULD be defined" that are needed. Best regards Laurent T. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645 A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaakko Sundquist <jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM> on 18/04/2000 16:06:17 Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com cc: (bcc: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL) Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes Hi Radhika & Laurent, See my comments embedded... > > The contributions and explanations have been provided why > "Home" is needed > in the same context of "Home" domain. The Home Administrative Domain came about because it seemed a good idea to bind the subscription of a User to some administrative entity (such as an operator). At the same time we have defined the HLF as the only place in which location information about the user can always be found (albeit clearer definitions about this information are still needed). Thus the domain containing the HLF of the user was in effect defined as the Home Administrative Domain of the user. > > If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network > address, we > have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place > of mobility > whether it is "home" Adm domain. I do not follow your reasoning above at all. Concidering a home GK or zone, I can understand that they may be needed if the service execution is done in the "home" of the user, i.e. all calls for a user would be controlled by the same GK, namely the home GK of the user. For service execution in the Visited Administrative Domain, I do not see any reason, why the concept of a home GK would be needed. Furthermore, if a concept is not definitely needed, I will not want to define it. I also feel we need to examine and define the "service execution in the home environment" or "virtual home environment" model better, so that everyone understands, what it is all about. As for the need for a home Network Point of Attachment, I am waiting for your contribution that clarifies, why we would need it. > > I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word > home should not > be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document. The point is that so far, if I understand Laurent correctly, neither he or I have accepted the concepts of home GK or home Network Point of Attachment. Those are the terms that we would not like to see in the picture. > > It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, > they may NOT use > it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed. > > It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress > unless we are in > consistent in defining term terms. > > I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used. > I do not want to see contributions telling what terms SHOULD NOT be defined, I want to see contributions telling why some terms SHOULD be defined. So far I haven't seen such contributions on home NPoA and I'm still not sure about the home GK either. -Jaakko

1 0

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

Hi, Laurent: It is under discussion. The contributions and explanations have been provided why "Home" is needed in the same context of "Home" domain. If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network address, we have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place of mobility whether it is "home" Adm domain. I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word home should not be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document. It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, they may NOT use it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed. It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress unless we are in consistent in defining term terms. I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Laurent Thiebaut [SMTP:Laurent.Thiebaut@ALCATEL.FR] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:20 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes > > My (perhaps wrong) remembering of the result of the discussion is that > The word 'home' should not be kept in this figure (strikethrough: is > presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though > there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The > use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after > more > discussion later. ) > Best regards > Laurent T. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645 > A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > Guram Paul-LPG019 <lpg019(a)EMAIL.MOT.COM> on 18/04/2000 02:15:42 > > Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study > Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > cc: (bcc: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL) > > > > Subject: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes > > > > > > > Hello mob group > > Please find below the notes from today's conference call: > > 1. Representatives from AT&T, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, > Motorola > and Alcatel discussed MD-017 from Radhika Roy (AT&T) at the conf.call. > The > use of the word 'network' was clarified in that we shall use it in > conjunction with addressing, i.e. 'network point of attachment'. Thus the > figure 1 in MD-017 is to be modified to reflect this. The word 'home' in > this figure is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even > though > there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The > use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after > more > discussion later. This figure is to be incorporated in Annex H to show > the > 'intra-zone' communication scenario. The editor, will also consider to > add > some text to explain the boxes VLF,HLF and AuF, if these are also included > in the new version of Annex H. Also from the email discussion and today's > discussion the editor will incorporate text (as he sees fit) in > appropriate > sections of Annex H. The next version of the Annex will show all the new > text added by the editor (with suitable revision marks), and indicate at > the > beginning of the Annex that the text with no revision marks is the only > agreed text so far. This is to ensure that readers of the new version are > not misled as to which parts of the annex are the agreed text and which > are > still for discussion. The editor, Jaakko Sundquist, will endeavour to > produce this new version one week before the next conference call which is > to be on Tuesday 9 May at the same time. > > 2. Steve Terrill (Ericsson) will enhance his last contribution MD-016 > to explain the reasons behind his proposals. Also he will propose/discuss > discovery mechanisms for the VLF. > > 3. Radhika Roy will produce a contribution to explain why it is > necessary to include the word 'home' in the 'network point of attachment', > i.e. explain the 'home network point of attachment'. > > 4. Paul Guram will consult Mr Okubo to see if a separate dedicated > reflector can be started for the mobility group's use. > > 5. A number of contributions have not been discussed yet due to lack > of > time. From the material in these contributions, the contributors will > make > proposals to enhance/add/delete text when the editor submits the new > version > next time. This would be a better way to progress the work and also > ensure > that no-one's contribution is inadvertently discarded without discussion. > > Paul

1 0

Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Laurent Thiebaut 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

My (perhaps wrong) remembering of the result of the discussion is that The word 'home' should not be kept in this figure (strikethrough: is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after more discussion later. ) Best regards Laurent T. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645 A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guram Paul-LPG019 <lpg019(a)EMAIL.MOT.COM> on 18/04/2000 02:15:42 Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com cc: (bcc: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL) Subject: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes Hello mob group Please find below the notes from today's conference call: 1. Representatives from AT&T, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Motorola and Alcatel discussed MD-017 from Radhika Roy (AT&T) at the conf.call. The use of the word 'network' was clarified in that we shall use it in conjunction with addressing, i.e. 'network point of attachment'. Thus the figure 1 in MD-017 is to be modified to reflect this. The word 'home' in this figure is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after more discussion later. This figure is to be incorporated in Annex H to show the 'intra-zone' communication scenario. The editor, will also consider to add some text to explain the boxes VLF,HLF and AuF, if these are also included in the new version of Annex H. Also from the email discussion and today's discussion the editor will incorporate text (as he sees fit) in appropriate sections of Annex H. The next version of the Annex will show all the new text added by the editor (with suitable revision marks), and indicate at the beginning of the Annex that the text with no revision marks is the only agreed text so far. This is to ensure that readers of the new version are not misled as to which parts of the annex are the agreed text and which are still for discussion. The editor, Jaakko Sundquist, will endeavour to produce this new version one week before the next conference call which is to be on Tuesday 9 May at the same time. 2. Steve Terrill (Ericsson) will enhance his last contribution MD-016 to explain the reasons behind his proposals. Also he will propose/discuss discovery mechanisms for the VLF. 3. Radhika Roy will produce a contribution to explain why it is necessary to include the word 'home' in the 'network point of attachment', i.e. explain the 'home network point of attachment'. 4. Paul Guram will consult Mr Okubo to see if a separate dedicated reflector can be started for the mobility group's use. 5. A number of contributions have not been discussed yet due to lack of time. From the material in these contributions, the contributors will make proposals to enhance/add/delete text when the editor submits the new version next time. This would be a better way to progress the work and also ensure that no-one's contribution is inadvertently discarded without discussion. Paul

1 0

Re: APC number
by Sakae OKUBO 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Dear Mr. Audet, >H.323 Annex M.1 $B%_ (B Tunnelling of signalling protocols (QSIG) >Fran $B9P (Bis Audet (Editor), Nortel Networks APC-1758 has been allocated to your contribution. 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

17 April Mobility Conf call notes
by Guram Paul-LPG019 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Hello mob group Please find below the notes from today's conference call: 1. Representatives from AT&T, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Motorola and Alcatel discussed MD-017 from Radhika Roy (AT&T) at the conf.call. The use of the word 'network' was clarified in that we shall use it in conjunction with addressing, i.e. 'network point of attachment'. Thus the figure 1 in MD-017 is to be modified to reflect this. The word 'home' in this figure is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after more discussion later. This figure is to be incorporated in Annex H to show the 'intra-zone' communication scenario. The editor, will also consider to add some text to explain the boxes VLF,HLF and AuF, if these are also included in the new version of Annex H. Also from the email discussion and today's discussion the editor will incorporate text (as he sees fit) in appropriate sections of Annex H. The next version of the Annex will show all the new text added by the editor (with suitable revision marks), and indicate at the beginning of the Annex that the text with no revision marks is the only agreed text so far. This is to ensure that readers of the new version are not misled as to which parts of the annex are the agreed text and which are still for discussion. The editor, Jaakko Sundquist, will endeavour to produce this new version one week before the next conference call which is to be on Tuesday 9 May at the same time. 2. Steve Terrill (Ericsson) will enhance his last contribution MD-016 to explain the reasons behind his proposals. Also he will propose/discuss discovery mechanisms for the VLF. 3. Radhika Roy will produce a contribution to explain why it is necessary to include the word 'home' in the 'network point of attachment', i.e. explain the 'home network point of attachment'. 4. Paul Guram will consult Mr Okubo to see if a separate dedicated reflector can be started for the mobility group's use. 5. A number of contributions have not been discussed yet due to lack of time. From the material in these contributions, the contributors will make proposals to enhance/add/delete text when the editor submits the new version next time. This would be a better way to progress the work and also ensure that no-one's contribution is inadvertently discarded without discussion. Paul

1 0

[Robustness] Conference call for Apr 20
by Terry L Anderson 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

The next H.323 Robustness teleconference will be as below. NOTE THAT THIS IS LATER IN THE DAY THAN PREVIOUS CALLS Conference Date: 20-APR-2000 Conference Time: 11:00 AM Eastern US (EDT) 10:00 AM Central 09:00 AM Mountain 08:00 AM Pacific 15:00 UT or GMT Bridge Telephone Number: 630-979-0100 Conference Code: 386137 It would be helpful is those that plan to call in send email to tla(a)lucent.com (NOT TO THE SG16 REFLECTOR) so that we have sufficient ports reserved. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Terry L Anderson mailto:tla@lucent.com Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729 Pager:800.759.8352 pin 1704572 1704572(a)skytel.com Lucent Technologies/ Voice Over IP Access Networks/ Applications Grp Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

1 0

Re: srcAlternatives and destAlternatives
by Francois Audet 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Cool. You got a good memory... -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paul.jones@ties.itu.ch] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 12:06 PM To: ITU-SG16; Audet, Francois [SC9:4K02:EXCH] Subject: Re: srcAlternatives and destAlternatives Francois, This came from a contribution made by VocalTec (AVC-1157) in February 1997. This was introduced as a means of providing some redundancy to the endpoint. Unfortunately, just as with the alternate gatekeeper fields that were added to V2, there was no procedural text to explain the usage of these fields. So for the moment, the usage is undefined. Paul

1 0