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

H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions V5 Update
by Christian Groves 07 May '01

07 May '01

G'Day all, I have come up with an interim version of the H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions v5. It contains additional correction to ones reviewed at the SG16 Launceston meeting. It can be found at: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ filenames: TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.doc TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.pdf Please check it for correctness and that it contains the points discussed on the list. There were also some corrections added that were not discussed on the list. If you have an issue please propose a solution giving the wording that you would like to see. As mentioned in the introduction this document is liable to change until final approval. v4 was my own edition and was not published to any external network/list so please don't look for it. Let the editor bashing begin. Cheers, Christian

5 6

RE: H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions V5 Update
by Blatherwick, Peter 01 Apr '01

01 Apr '01

Hi Christian: Quick questions (apologies if I have just been out of the loop for too long). - What are the change bars in v5 relative to? - Is there a complete Implementors Guide to look at, including proposed additions. If not, where can I locate the latest version that the proposed additions would apply to? Cheers, Peter Blatherwick -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 23:28 To: megaco ietf; SG16 Subject: H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions V5 Update G'Day all, I have come up with an interim version of the H.248 Implementors' Guide Additions v5. It contains additional correction to ones reviewed at the SG16 Launceston meeting. It can be found at: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ filenames: TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.doc TD-xxx_H248_Implementors_Additions_v5.pdf Please check it for correctness and that it contains the points discussed on the list. There were also some corrections added that were not discussed on the list. If you have an issue please propose a solution giving the wording that you would like to see. As mentioned in the introduction this document is liable to change until final approval. v4 was my own edition and was not published to any external network/list so please don't look for it. Let the editor bashing begin. Cheers, Christian

2 1

FW: List Last Call On draft-rosen-megaco-namepatterns-00.txt
by Tom-PT Taylor 30 Mar '01

30 Mar '01

FYI -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B881:EXCH] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:45 PM To: 'megaco' Subject: List Last Call On draft-rosen-megaco-namepatterns-00.txt I would like to make an official Last Call for draft-rosen-megaco-namepatterns-00.txt, to expire Friday, April 15. After that I will forward it to the IESG and register the package with IANA. I do need list direction on whether it should be Informational or Standards Track. Tom Taylor Multimedia Control and Applications Standards Ph. +1 613 736 0961 taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com

1 0

FW: List Last Call For draft-boyle-megaco-tonepkgs-02.txt
by Tom-PT Taylor 30 Mar '01

30 Mar '01

FYI -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B881:EXCH] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:43 PM To: 'megaco' Subject: List Last Call For draft-boyle-megaco-tonepkgs-02.txt I would like to announce Last Call for draft-boyle-megaco-tonepkgs-02.txt, to end Friday, April 15. This draft is a candidate for reference by the decided Q.1950, so the authors would like it to go forward in Standards Track. It will not move forward unless I have comments from other parties. Please have a look. Tom Taylor Multimedia Control and Applications Standards Ph. +1 613 736 0961 taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com

1 0

How do I sign up to this list?
by Mart Nurmet 30 Mar '01

30 Mar '01

Thanks! -Mart

2 1

Call for participation for ICN01 and Call for Papers for ECUMN'02
by conf＠UHA.FR 30 Mar '01

30 Mar '01

Dear All, Please feel free to circulate to interested colleagues: 1. The preliminary program of ICN01 (International Conference on Networking) (see http://iutsun1.colmar.uha.fr/ICN01.html ) which will be held at Colmar, France, from Monday July 9, 2001 to Friday July 13, 2001. If you would like to Chair a session during ICN01, please contact lorenz(a)ieee.org 2. The call for papers of ECUMN'02 (see http://iutsun1.colmar.uha.fr/ECUMN02.html ) scheduled from April 8 to April 10, 2002. The deadline for this CfP is September 1, 2001. Accept our sincere apologies if you receive multiple copies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Updates of H.MMS.1 (Mobility for H.323)
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Hi, Ernst: Per AVD-2100 Version 1 (March 9, 2001 - Launceston Meeting), many contributions have been accepted for proposed modifications of the document (H.MMS.1 - H.323 Mobility). When will it be the right time to post the latest UPDATED document in the SG web site (http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0103_Lau/)? If you do so, we can bring contributions to the upcoming SG16 meeting in May-June'01 showing where the modifications need to be made. Please note that the contributions need to be approved by the respective Govt of each country. That is, if the update document is posted by April 15, 2001, then we will have enough time to go through the document and write contributions and take the approval from the Dept of State by the end of April (may April 30). We would appreciate if you would kindly post the updated document not later than April 15, 2001. Thanks in advance, Radhika R. Roy Technology Consultant AT&T Room 3D-2C09 200 S. Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Omission in H.245 v7
by Francois Audet 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Actually, this was done on purpose. It was also apparently discussed in the last meeting (which I didn't attend). The way it works with fastStart is that after (or at the same time) as fastStart is initiated, you'll have to initiate H.245 Terminal capability negotiation, and that is where the dynamic payload type will be exchanged. There are procedures in H.323v4 that allows you to do terminal capability negotiation in parrallel with fastStart. The whole idea is to stop adding things to fastStart. -----Original Message----- From: Rajesh Kumar [mailto:rkumar@CISCO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 18:56 To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Omission in H.245 v7 Dear ITU SG16 team, I just came across what I believe is an unintended omission in H.245 v7. Although you have added support for rfc2833 to the 'terminal capability set' command, you have not included it as one of the CHOICEs for the dataType object in the Open Logical Channel command. The upshot is that you cannot dynamically assign a payload type to rfc2833 telephone events in the 'fast connect' scenario where the 'terminal capability set' command is not used. For all practical purposes, this means that you either statically provision the rfc2833 capability, which the IETF has decried, or you do not use Fast Connect when you support telephone events. All indications are that this is a minor, unintended omission on the part of SG16: nobody has discovered it as yet. It can be fixed easily. The Open Logical Channel dataType object points to the capability objects anyway, and there is no reason to omit AudioTelephonyEventCapability as an instance of the dataType object. How should we go about fixing this - H.245 is still in draft, although there is preliminary approval of it? Thanks. Rajesh ------------------------------------- Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Principal Engineer Cisco Voice Technology Center Tel: 408-527-0811, Fax: 408-853-1101 Epage: mailto:rkumar@epage.cisco.com ------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Omission in H.245 v7
by Rajesh Kumar 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Dear ITU SG16 team, I just came across what I believe is an unintended omission in H.245 v7. Although you have added support for rfc2833 to the 'terminal capability set' command, you have not included it as one of the CHOICEs for the dataType object in the Open Logical Channel command. The upshot is that you cannot dynamically assign a payload type to rfc2833 telephone events in the 'fast connect' scenario where the 'terminal capability set' command is not used. For all practical purposes, this means that you either statically provision the rfc2833 capability, which the IETF has decried, or you do not use Fast Connect when you support telephone events. All indications are that this is a minor, unintended omission on the part of SG16: nobody has discovered it as yet. It can be fixed easily. The Open Logical Channel dataType object points to the capability objects anyway, and there is no reason to omit AudioTelephonyEventCapability as an instance of the dataType object. How should we go about fixing this - H.245 is still in draft, although there is preliminary approval of it? Thanks. Rajesh ------------------------------------- Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Principal Engineer Cisco Voice Technology Center Tel: 408-527-0811, Fax: 408-853-1101 Epage: mailto:rkumar@epage.cisco.com ------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Firewall/NAT Crossing by H.323/H.248
by Alok Dubey (OCS-BLRAKS-AVS) 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Just to add to the below.. NAT and firewalls are no problem per se that the source IP is translated and the destination IP is that of the actual destination itself.. but for a proxy we have application based stuff happening.. eg http proxy or ftp proxy. What i would like to know is this.. 1. Is there a way that we can make our proxies SIP aware or H.323 aware.. 2. If we are using a NAT or a firewall then does it actually support the SIP prioritising mechanisms.. eg.. when i set up a network i tend to prioritise voice traffic by in turn prioritizing the RTP traffic(for voice quality) or SIP traffic.. (for call setup etc) Now will firewall softwares support this QoS / IP Priority stuff? else this will be a scenario where half my netowrk components are aware of Prioritising the traffic and half are not. Rgds Alok Dubey -----Original Message----- From: Alok Dubey (OCS-BLRAKS-AVS) Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 1:47 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: Firewall/NAT Crossing by H.323/H.248 Hi, Can anyone point to the RFC / draft whih tells me the standard encapsualtion / message format for data flows across firewalls/proxies/NATs? ..im sure once that is figured out .. instead of making firewalls/ NAts H.323 aware, one could simply just change the policies to allow forwarding of H.323 traffic like ordinary HTTP/FTP traffic....by opening the corresponding ports.. Rgds Alok Dubey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0