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

H.450.9 draft white updated
by Klaghofer Karl ICN SIB NL D1 04 Jun '00

04 Jun '00

I have uploaded the updated draft White document for H.450.9 (i.e. an updated version of TD-55 Osaka) to the pictel incoming directory for your review. ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/h4509WhiteDraft.zip Compared to TD-55, I have made minor modifications related to H.323 references as requested by meeting participants in the sections Summary 9.2.8, and 9.3.8. Please note that I will send the document to Mr. Bigi already on June 15 for translation (as agreed in Osaka). So, if you have any comments please provide them to me during the next two weeks. Regards, Karl Klaghofer Siemens > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

H.248 change document
by Glen Freundlich 04 Jun '00

04 Jun '00

Greetings, I have placed 3 files in the Incoming directory of the pictel ftp site: H248-for-decision-changes-wsynt.zip - The change document showing the specific modifications to the determined H.248 as finalized at the Osaka meeting. H248-for-decision-wcm.zip - The entire H.248 document with changes to the determined document highlighted. H248-for-decision-wcm.zip - H.248 with all changes accepted (the clean document). Regards, Glen -- Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
by Paul Long 02 Jun '00

02 Jun '00

Pete, Table 13/H.225.0v3 shows that the User-to-User IE is mandatory. What IEs do you believe are not mandatory? H.323 states that the fastStart and h245Control components cannot both be present in the Setup message (do I need to quote it again?). A Setup User-to-User IE containing either or neither component is valid; one containing both is clearly invalid. Why do you think otherwise? H.323, by way of Q.931, requires that the called EP respond with ReleaseComplete with cause 100. There is no other appropriate cause. The feature that should be deprecated is the inclusion of both fastStart and h245Control in Setup. I was under the impression that either through IGv3 or H.323v4 this had already made it into the standard. If its not too late, we should simply remove this feature from any proposed text; if it is too late, we should deprecate it because it causes insurmountable backward compatibility problems. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete@TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:31 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4 Paul, I don't really believe that the release cause you cite is valid. The IEs are not mandatory, and (taken by themselves) they don't have invalid content. I don't believe it is the intent of this cause code to signal the sort of thing that we are talking about here either. Are there any other causes and clauses that you think might be more appropriate? Also, when you say "the feature" should be deprecated, what are you referring to as "the feature"? I'm not quite clear. Pete. ============================================= Pete Cordell pete(a)tech-know-ware.com ============================================= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

3 4

Re: H.323 Annex O
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 31 May '00

31 May '00

Hi, Glen: It is nice to know that an H.246 SIP-H.323 Interworking APPENDIX will be created. Per earlier emails, it appears that this APPENDIX will be informational one. With respect to presenting the contributions, I tried to bring contributions including authors of the Internet Drafts for the SIP-H.323 Interworking in the last SG16 meeting held in Geneva on February 2000. However, the US Dept of State did not accept the contributions of the organizations (e.g., Universities) and companies who were not the members of the ITU-T SG16 (either independently or jointly with other companies who are the members of the ITU-T). However, in IETF, it has not been the case. That is why, the authors of those internet drafts are working to create an Informational RFC. Now it appears that the SG16 will also be creating an informational APPENDIX. It appears that the IETF's Informational RFC will be produced first. Let us keep our eyes open how we can create a unified informational standard cooperating in both standard organizations. Some suggestions have been made in the earlier emails. Our objectives should be to create one single standard for the same thing. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Freundlich [SMTP:ggf@LUCENT.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323 Annex O > > While it is true that work is progressed through written contributions to > study > group and rapporteurs' meetings, those written contributions can be > created > jointly via email, conference calls, over a plate of bull fries at Bruce's > Bar, > etc. Note that joint creation of a contribution does not guarantee its > approval > (although probability of approval certainly increases when a larger group > of > people are involved in the creation of a proposal). > > In the case of a jointly created contribution, it seems reasonable that > someone > from that group would be able to present the contribution at a meeting. If > someone has a contribution they would like to present at a meeting, but is > unable > to attend, it's certainly possible to ask someone who plans to attend the > meeting > to present the material. > > As for the SIP-H.323 interworking annex, check the meeting report: > > "Call signaling could be captured in an appendix to H.246. This appendix > would > first address simple audio interworking, covering topics such as mapping > messages > between H.323 and SIP. This is work that is currently in progress in the > IETF > (not an official work item at this time, but an unofficial task in the SIP > working group). This appendix would define the "preferred interworking > mode" of > H.323; we'd expect the SIP experts to define the preferred interworking > mode of > SIP. We need to capture the essence of each of the functional entities. > Contributions are requested." > > SIP-H.323 interworking would be described in an appendix to H.246 (not > H.323 > Annex O). This would describe the "preferred interworking mode", which > would > specify, for example, the use of H.323 fast start. It might describe the > relationship between the functional entities (e.g., is the SIP-H.323 > interworking > function in a gateway or gatekeeper for the H.323 side, and in a SIP proxy > for > the SIP side?). It would describe message mapping (e.g., the H.323 Setup > message > maps to a SIP Invite message, and the called party number IE is mapped to > the To > header). > > Glen > > > Chip Sharp wrote: > > > At 09:59 AM 5/30/00 -0400, Roy, Radhika R, ALARC wrote: > > ...snip... > > >There are also no mechanisms in the ITU-T SG16 to accept the > contributions > > >for the companies that can afford to communicate via emails only. I > guess > > >that the best way is to have the RFC from the IETF that will have all > inputs > > >from all companies that invented the interworking solution. The SG16 > can > > >then have the RFC for their use to make a formal standard (with more > > >additions if needed). > > > > It is true that SG16 still operates mainly on the basis of written > > contributions to meetings and not on mail lists like IETF WG. It is > also > > true that non-ITU members have a hard time participating in ITU SG > > work. Even if a company is an ITU member, attending all the meetings > > around the world is a travel burden on small companies (even big > > companies). However, an IETF WG can submit a written contribution to > SG16 > > via existing mechanisms. Usually, this is initiated via consensus of the > WG > > and/or by WG chair via the ISOC VP - Standards. Of course, it requires > > someone to represent that contribution at the SG16 meetings. The SG16 > > Rapporteurs have been very open in the past to inviting non-ITU member > > experts to Rapporteur Meetings to further the work. The SG16 mail list > has > > been one of the more active SG mail lists in actually discussing > technical > > issues. And SG16's working documents are available for review as well > (at > > least from Rapporteur's Meetings). It will be nice if ITU could codify > > some of these examples at WTSA. > > > > I understand the desire to do the work in one place. It is also true > that > > SG16 can reference an IETF RFC in its recommendations. However, if it > is > > an informational RFC, it can't be a normative reference in ITU. > > ...snip... > > >If you think that any improvements need to be done in the solutions > proposed > > >in the contributions of the IETF (please see the references provided in > my > > >email), please submit the proposal in the IETF. We can then use the > > >Informational RFC as an input for a formal standard in the SG16. In > this > > >way, we can get the best the both worlds having a "single common > standard > > >for SIP-H.323 Interworking". > > > > Remember an ITU Recommendation cannot make a normative reference to an > > Informational RFC. > > If there is no new protocol work being done, the H.323-SIP interworking > > could conceivably become a BCP (Best Current Practice) some day. > > > > >The key is that the SG16 cannot use the interworking solution that has > been > > >"invented" by the other companies or institutions without their consent > and > > >participation. I personally feel very strongly that the SG16 cannot not > > >"invent" a NEW interworking solution of its own that will NOT include > the > > >solutions proposed by others in the IETF. > > > > The ITU can incorporate by (normative or non-normative) reference to any > > RFC. The IETF has an IPR policy that isn't too different from ITU (I > don't > > think). Current A.5 procedures require that IETF provide a written > > agreement to allow normative references to an RFC (I don't remember ever > > seeing one of these, but there may be a blanket agreement). There are > > proposals to drop this requirement in the next version of A.5. > > > > Any IPR contained in IETF RFCs are covered by IETF IPR policy. It is > true > > that a company that has declared IPR in an IETF RFC may not know it is > > being referenced in ITU and therefore may not submit an IPR statement to > > ITU. Therefore the IPR would only be covered by the IETF IPR statement > > (this brings up interesting legal questions, but I'll leave that up to > the > > lawyers.). This should only be a real problem if the invention were > > included in the ITU Recommendation by some means other than reference. > > > > So the bottom line is that there are mechanisms to share work in ITU and > > IETF even without all the formal mechanisms worked out between Megaco > and > > Q.14. However, if the work is going to be cooperative, such an > agreement > > is probably desirable. > > > > Good Luck! > > Chip > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Chip Sharp CTO Consulting Engineering > > Cisco Systems > > Reality - Love it or Leave it. > > http://www.netaid.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com > > -- > Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com > Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 > 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 > Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

R:H.248 change document
by Tosco Federico 31 May '00

31 May '00

Good! Federico > ---------- > Da: Glen Freundlich[SMTP:ggf@LUCENT.COM] > Risposta a: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Inviato: mercoledì 31 maggio 2000 19.29 > A: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Oggetto: H.248 change document > > Greetings, > > I have placed 3 files in the Incoming directory of the pictel ftp site: > > H248-for-decision-changes-wsynt.zip - The change document showing the > specific modifications to the determined H.248 as finalized at the Osaka > meeting. > > H248-for-decision-wcm.zip - The entire H.248 document with changes to > the determined document highlighted. > > H248-for-decision-wcm.zip - H.248 with all changes accepted (the clean > document). > > Regards, > Glen > > > -- > Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com > Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 > 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 > Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex O
by Tom-PT Taylor 31 May '00

31 May '00

Gee, I'm usually the lawyer. I stand corrected on this point. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob@HARVARD.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:56 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323 Annex O > > > Chip Sharp further made it clear in his email the problems of using the > IETF > > drafts if the authors cannot participate in the ITU meetings no matter > > whether there is IPR or not. > > lets be careful here - > > current Copyright law says there is always Copyright IPR in any document > even > if the document has no copyright statement on it. > > the IETF requires that authors of IETF documents give the IETF (actually > ISOC > for legal reasons) the right to publish the douments, allow others to > publish the documents as-is, and, in most cases, the right to make > derivative > works within the IETF standards process - the author retains all other > rights > > the IETF can not grant the right for any other organization to make > derivative rigts because we do not get that right from the authors > > but the authors can give their own OK if they want > > that said, I do not think its a real good idea to have two > organizations working off the same base documents to come up > with different results - it just confuses the community - so > I would rather that one organization take the token to lead but > that people from both organizations work together if possible > > Scott > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex O
by Chip Sharp 31 May '00

31 May '00

At 09:59 AM 5/30/00 -0400, Roy, Radhika R, ALARC wrote: ...snip... >There are also no mechanisms in the ITU-T SG16 to accept the contributions >for the companies that can afford to communicate via emails only. I guess >that the best way is to have the RFC from the IETF that will have all inputs >from all companies that invented the interworking solution. The SG16 can >then have the RFC for their use to make a formal standard (with more >additions if needed). It is true that SG16 still operates mainly on the basis of written contributions to meetings and not on mail lists like IETF WG. It is also true that non-ITU members have a hard time participating in ITU SG work. Even if a company is an ITU member, attending all the meetings around the world is a travel burden on small companies (even big companies). However, an IETF WG can submit a written contribution to SG16 via existing mechanisms. Usually, this is initiated via consensus of the WG and/or by WG chair via the ISOC VP - Standards. Of course, it requires someone to represent that contribution at the SG16 meetings. The SG16 Rapporteurs have been very open in the past to inviting non-ITU member experts to Rapporteur Meetings to further the work. The SG16 mail list has been one of the more active SG mail lists in actually discussing technical issues. And SG16's working documents are available for review as well (at least from Rapporteur's Meetings). It will be nice if ITU could codify some of these examples at WTSA. I understand the desire to do the work in one place. It is also true that SG16 can reference an IETF RFC in its recommendations. However, if it is an informational RFC, it can't be a normative reference in ITU. ...snip... >If you think that any improvements need to be done in the solutions proposed >in the contributions of the IETF (please see the references provided in my >email), please submit the proposal in the IETF. We can then use the >Informational RFC as an input for a formal standard in the SG16. In this >way, we can get the best the both worlds having a "single common standard >for SIP-H.323 Interworking". Remember an ITU Recommendation cannot make a normative reference to an Informational RFC. If there is no new protocol work being done, the H.323-SIP interworking could conceivably become a BCP (Best Current Practice) some day. >The key is that the SG16 cannot use the interworking solution that has been >"invented" by the other companies or institutions without their consent and >participation. I personally feel very strongly that the SG16 cannot not >"invent" a NEW interworking solution of its own that will NOT include the >solutions proposed by others in the IETF. The ITU can incorporate by (normative or non-normative) reference to any RFC. The IETF has an IPR policy that isn't too different from ITU (I don't think). Current A.5 procedures require that IETF provide a written agreement to allow normative references to an RFC (I don't remember ever seeing one of these, but there may be a blanket agreement). There are proposals to drop this requirement in the next version of A.5. Any IPR contained in IETF RFCs are covered by IETF IPR policy. It is true that a company that has declared IPR in an IETF RFC may not know it is being referenced in ITU and therefore may not submit an IPR statement to ITU. Therefore the IPR would only be covered by the IETF IPR statement (this brings up interesting legal questions, but I'll leave that up to the lawyers.). This should only be a real problem if the invention were included in the ITU Recommendation by some means other than reference. So the bottom line is that there are mechanisms to share work in ITU and IETF even without all the formal mechanisms worked out between Megaco and Q.14. However, if the work is going to be cooperative, such an agreement is probably desirable. Good Luck! Chip ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp CTO Consulting Engineering Cisco Systems Reality - Love it or Leave it. http://www.netaid.org ------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: H.323-SIP Appendix of H.246 (Previously Annex O)
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 31 May '00

31 May '00

Hi, Orit and All: It is a very good proposal that H.246 SIP-H.323 Interworking APPENDIX will be an informational. In this case, I guess that we can also refer any IETF's Informational RFCs (including SIP-H.323 Interworking), if needed, in this APPENDIX because it does not need to have the "normative" references. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:29 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.323-SIP Appendix of H.246 (Previously Annex O) > > Good morning! A small clarification. > SG16 proposed to organized H.323-SIP work as an APPENDIX (i.e. > "informative"document) of H.246. H.246 is an umbrella for many signaling > gateways (such as H.320, ISUP, Mobile Networks, etc.). This Appendix will > happen only if contributions on H.323-SIP will be brought to SG16. It was > also noticed, that it is preferable to have architectural proposals, > defining preferred mode of operation, capabilities, versions, etc., rather > then containing detailed messages flows. Just a reminder, in ITU > everything is driven by contributions only. > > 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 <http://www.radvision.com> > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex O
by Scott Bradner 31 May '00

31 May '00

> Chip Sharp further made it clear in his email the problems of using the IETF > drafts if the authors cannot participate in the ITU meetings no matter > whether there is IPR or not. lets be careful here - current Copyright law says there is always Copyright IPR in any document even if the document has no copyright statement on it. the IETF requires that authors of IETF documents give the IETF (actually ISOC for legal reasons) the right to publish the douments, allow others to publish the documents as-is, and, in most cases, the right to make derivative works within the IETF standards process - the author retains all other rights the IETF can not grant the right for any other organization to make derivative rigts because we do not get that right from the authors but the authors can give their own OK if they want that said, I do not think its a real good idea to have two organizations working off the same base documents to come up with different results - it just confuses the community - so I would rather that one organization take the token to lead but that people from both organizations work together if possible Scott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

H.323-SIP Appendix of H.246 (Previously Annex O)
by Orit Levin 31 May '00

31 May '00

Good morning! A small clarification. SG16 proposed to organized H.323-SIP work as an APPENDIX (i.e. "informative"document) of H.246. H.246 is an umbrella for many signaling gateways (such as H.320, ISUP, Mobile Networks, etc.). This Appendix will happen only if contributions on H.323-SIP will be brought to SG16. It was also noticed, that it is preferable to have architectural proposals, defining preferred mode of operation, capabilities, versions, etc., rather then containing detailed messages flows. Just a reminder, in ITU everything is driven by contributions only. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com

1 0