October 2001 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [Megaco] H.248v2
by Christian Groves 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

GDay Tom, My suggestion would be rather to have a phone or video conference/s for the issues. That way all active interested parties can attend. As highlighted by others on the list in this current climate some people are unable to travel to meetings. This would also elimate throwing decisions over the fence and people complaining that they weren't part of the process. I had in mind a moderated conference by yourself as Megaco Chairman and Glen Fruendlich as SG16 Q.3 Rapportuer. This conference should be for active participants rather than those just listening in. That way both groups have input and are part of any decisions even if the decisions don't favour them. Regards, Christian Tom-PT Taylor wrote: > > We started to debate H.248v2 this morning. There will definitely be a > document put out for approval in February. At a minimum it will > contain the merged Implementor's Guide and H.248v1. The debate is > over what else it might contain. > > I will ask for time for a WG meeting. We will probably have some > discussion of our own, and we can also tackle some of the less > tractable issues from the list. > > Tom Taylor > taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com > Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490) > _______________________________________________ Megaco mailing list Megaco(a)ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

1 0

TD-05 and TD-19 available
by Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Folks, please find attached two TDs. Sorry for posting document here around but, for some couple of days, I have not been able to upload them to the Incoming FTP directory. So if anyone has access, please do on my behalf. Thank you. TD-05 "Agenda SG16 WP2 Q.G Meeting, Dublin, IR, 29 October- 2 November 2001" TD-19 "Liaison to Q.G/16 from SG9 on J.170 Security Issues" Have a good and safe trip to Dublin and CU there! <<TD-5.zip>> <<TD-19.zip>> With kind regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Martin Euchner Fax : +49 89 722 47713 | Siemens AG | ICN M SR 3 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/sr/pages/122/122_euchner.htm | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de/ | __________________ | Germany -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: [Megaco] Contribution AVD-2173 -- Implications Of Context At tribute Descri ptors
by Tom-PT Taylor 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

You're undoubtedly right on date -- the great IETF legal intercept debate occurred in the fall, following Megaco discussion of the same topic. I had Red Bank in mind, but this is one thing that didn't happen in Red Bank. Nevertheless, the fact that contributions are going in to the present meeting to fill in gaps kind of makes my point. We really didn't think context properties through, so that up to now they haven't had the same solid foundation as termination properties. I'm arguing we need more time to think through the semantic issues at the least, and to make sure that the protocol aspects are as regular as we can make them. Agreed that you can't drop existing properties on the floor. But we can do something like requiring that the new form be used when later-version implementations are talking to each other. -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves@ericsson.com.au] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:08 PM To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B881:EXCH] Cc: 'megaco(a)ietf.org'; 'itu-sg16(a)mailbag.intel.com' Subject: Re: [Megaco] Contribution AVD-2173 -- Implications Of Context Attribute Descri ptors G'Day Tom, For the record context properties were added in August 1999, to put that in context (pardon the pun) the handling of "context" (ie. linking, unlinking) was still being discussed in May 1999. So I don't think it was a last minute addition. I believe that with the contribution to this meeting (AVD-2120) and the ones to the previous meeting on this topic address the concerns in your bullet points. These use already established methods in H.248 to achieve your points (obviously there are some syntax additions). Can you please give some specific examples of what is not covered? Regarding the deprecation of existing context properties I believe this is pretty much out of the question as these are being used in implementations today. Regards, Christian Tom-PT Taylor wrote: > > My apologies for the late delivery of this contribution. For the moment I'm > locked out of the PictureTel server, so here's the text: > > TITLE: Implications Of Context Attribute Descriptors > > ___________________ > > Summary > > This contribution is written to express concern over the proposed inclusion > of context attribute descriptors in H.248v2. This innovation is seen upon > reflection as a major change in the H.248 protocol architecture, and > threatens the coherence of the protocol. > It is proposed as an alternative that we gain further experience by seeing > if it is possible to avoid the specification of new context properties while > solving the problems of MCU decomposition. When we are satisfied that we > can enunciate clear criteria for adding properties to contexts as opposed to > terminations and further, that we are aware of all of the implications of > context properties for the protocol, we can proceed to update the protocol > accordingly. > > 1. Introduction > > H.248v1 defines three context properties: the Topology Descriptor, the > Emergency flag, and the Priority flag. These additions were desirable, but > were made at a fairly late stage in the development of the protocol. As a > result, the work was done in an ad hoc manner and introduced irregularities > into the operation of the protocol. > > Delayed Contribution 129 (Porto Seguro) proposed the introduction of a > context attributes descriptor to contain new context properties and to allow > addition of such properties in packages. On the one hand, the present > contribution argues that this step, while desirable, does not go far enough > to assimilate context properties into the overall protocol structure. On > the other hand, introduction of the ability to define context properties in > packages at this stage in the development of the protocol may cause > confusion and threaten protocol interoperability at a practical level. > > 2. A Complete Implementation Of Context Properties > > A complete implementation of context properties requires that the protocol > satisfy the following requirements: > * there is a well-defined method for setting property values; > * there is a well-defined method for modifying or clearing property > values; > * there is a well-defined method for auditing values that have been > set on a context; > * it would be highly desirable to have a method for determining what > context properties an MG supports. > > Beyond these protocol matters come questions of semantics. We must decide > whether the permissible properties of a context can depend on what media are > flowing in it, or on the properties of the terminations currently in the > context. Since the active streams are a property of a context, we must > decide whether context properties can be associated with specific streams, > and if so, what syntax is used for the purpose. There are undoubtedly other > issues which may come to light. > > As a possibly controversial final step, it would seem desirable to > assimilate the existing context properties into the new syntactic structures > which would evolve. With appropriate requirements for transitional > interworking, the existing syntax for topology and the emergency and > priority flags should be deprecated and counterparts should be defined > within the context attribute descriptor. > > 3. Potential Confusion > > The final point this contribution makes is that if we do not establish a > clear definition within the protocol specification of which properties > should be context attributes and which should be termination properties, > packages will inevitably be defined which solve the same problem with > differing mechanisms. This will be unhelpful to achieving the > interoperability of different implementations. > > 4. Conclusion and Proposal > > Context attributes should be formalized only after careful study of all of > the issues. In concrete terms, this contribution proposes either that the > generalization of context attributes should be left to H.248v3 or else that > H.248v2 be delayed beyond the proposed February 2002 target. > > Tom Taylor > taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com > Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490) > > > _______________________________________________ > Megaco mailing list > Megaco(a)ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

[Megaco] Contribution AVD-2173 -- Implications Of Context Attribute Descri ptors
by Tom-PT Taylor 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

My apologies for the late delivery of this contribution. For the moment I'm locked out of the PictureTel server, so here's the text: TITLE: Implications Of Context Attribute Descriptors ___________________ Summary This contribution is written to express concern over the proposed inclusion of context attribute descriptors in H.248v2. This innovation is seen upon reflection as a major change in the H.248 protocol architecture, and threatens the coherence of the protocol. It is proposed as an alternative that we gain further experience by seeing if it is possible to avoid the specification of new context properties while solving the problems of MCU decomposition. When we are satisfied that we can enunciate clear criteria for adding properties to contexts as opposed to terminations and further, that we are aware of all of the implications of context properties for the protocol, we can proceed to update the protocol accordingly. 1. Introduction H.248v1 defines three context properties: the Topology Descriptor, the Emergency flag, and the Priority flag. These additions were desirable, but were made at a fairly late stage in the development of the protocol. As a result, the work was done in an ad hoc manner and introduced irregularities into the operation of the protocol. Delayed Contribution 129 (Porto Seguro) proposed the introduction of a context attributes descriptor to contain new context properties and to allow addition of such properties in packages. On the one hand, the present contribution argues that this step, while desirable, does not go far enough to assimilate context properties into the overall protocol structure. On the other hand, introduction of the ability to define context properties in packages at this stage in the development of the protocol may cause confusion and threaten protocol interoperability at a practical level. 2. A Complete Implementation Of Context Properties A complete implementation of context properties requires that the protocol satisfy the following requirements: · there is a well-defined method for setting property values; · there is a well-defined method for modifying or clearing property values; · there is a well-defined method for auditing values that have been set on a context; · it would be highly desirable to have a method for determining what context properties an MG supports. Beyond these protocol matters come questions of semantics. We must decide whether the permissible properties of a context can depend on what media are flowing in it, or on the properties of the terminations currently in the context. Since the active streams are a property of a context, we must decide whether context properties can be associated with specific streams, and if so, what syntax is used for the purpose. There are undoubtedly other issues which may come to light. As a possibly controversial final step, it would seem desirable to assimilate the existing context properties into the new syntactic structures which would evolve. With appropriate requirements for transitional interworking, the existing syntax for topology and the emergency and priority flags should be deprecated and counterparts should be defined within the context attribute descriptor. 3. Potential Confusion The final point this contribution makes is that if we do not establish a clear definition within the protocol specification of which properties should be context attributes and which should be termination properties, packages will inevitably be defined which solve the same problem with differing mechanisms. This will be unhelpful to achieving the interoperability of different implementations. 4. Conclusion and Proposal Context attributes should be formalized only after careful study of all of the issues. In concrete terms, this contribution proposes either that the generalization of context attributes should be left to H.248v3 or else that H.248v2 be delayed beyond the proposed February 2002 target. Tom Taylor taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490) _______________________________________________ Megaco mailing list Megaco(a)ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

2 1

Re: AVD-2159, 2161, 2162 & 2163 uploaded
by Reddy, Paul K 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

Hi Everybody, I have uploaded the following documents into AVS-Site Incoming directory: AVD-2159.zip : Q5/16: Presence Services requirements (Stage1) from 3GPP SA1 group AVD-2161.zip: Q5/16: Mobile Presence and Instant Messaging TOR (Terms of Reference) AVD-2162.zip: Q5/16: XML based protocol for Mobile Presence and Instant messaging AVD-2163.zip: Q5/16: Inter-working function between existing Presence and IM systems (e.g., AOL, MSN etc.) and Mobile Presence and IM systems based on XML based protocols regards, Paul Rapporteur of Q5/16 Intel Labs

1 0

ADV 2106R2
by Folts, Harold 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Greetings, I have made a few more revisions to this document as a result of comments received and translating it into the IETF Internet-Draft format. I uploaded it to the "incoming" directory. See you in Dublin. Hal <<Harold (Hal) C. Folts (E-mail).vcf>>

2 1

Document AVD-2109 has been uploaded
by Sasha Ruditsky 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Hello all! The first version of H.460.3 "Presence in H.323 Systems" has been just uploaded as AVD-2109.zip to ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming for your review. Best Regards, Sasha Ruditsky RADVISION Inc. TEL: +1.201.529.4300 x 243 FAX: +1.201.529.3516 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

AVD-2128, 2129, 2130 uploaded
by Terry L Anderson 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

I have uploaded the following documents for the Dublin meeting AVD-2128 H.248 Implementors Guide AVD-2129 Draft of Proposed H.248 Annex M_KA: KeepAlive Package for H.248 AVD-2130 Draft of Proposed LineTest Package for H.248 -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Terry L Anderson mailto:tla@lucent.com Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729 Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks 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: Documents AVD-2145 uploaded
by BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Dear all, The following contribution has been uploaded to the "incoming" directory : - AVD-2145 (source: France Telecom ; title : the User Service Profile in Multimedia Management databases ; purpose : proposal) Best regards François Bougant France Telecom ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

AVD-2166 upload
by POSE Laurent FTRD/DAC/ISS 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Hello, The following contribution has been uploaded to /Incoming of the ftp site. AVD-2166 Source: FranceTelecom Title: Inconsistency between implementer's guide and H.225.0 on IE Redirecting number, Best Regards, Laurent Posé. France Telecom.

1 0