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

Latest draft H.245
by OKUBO Sakae 09 May '01

09 May '01

Dear SG16 experts, The following draft by Mr. Mike Nilsson, Editor, is now available for your review toward the Porto Seguro meeting: http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0105_Por/h245wcmp.zip Best regards, OKUBO Sakae ********************************************************* Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp Tel: +81 3 3204 8194 Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 ********************************************************* My contract with TAO finished on 31 March. Please change my e-mail address as above, though okubo(a)giti.or.jp will continue to work for some time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 3

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

Emergency Services and Service classes
by Gary Thom 03 May '01

03 May '01

I would like to re-open the discussion started at the Nov 2000 Geneva meeting and continued at the March 2001 Launceston meeting relating to Emergency Services. In order to support Emergency Services, there are three services that are desired: 1)Priority Dial Tone - this is a line or endpoint dedicated to emergency calls. 2)Priority Call Setup - this allows an emegency call to be made from any endpoint. 3)Priority Call transit through packet network - this requires interworking existing ISUP high probability of completion call marking with H.323, H.323 Annex M.2, h.246 Annex C, and H.248. An emergency call may be pre-emptive or may just improve the probability of call completion without pre-emption depending on national policy. Authentication issues also need to be worked out. Currently, in the US, this is handled like a calling card authentication. At the Geneva meeting, it was decided that this work was closely related to contribution D.4 from Cicso on reserving resources and also Annex N/H.323 on QOS. Also included were liaison statements from SG11 on QOS for BICC, and an ETSI TIPHON document on signaling end-to-end-qos. All of these items require a method of signaling the desired quality of service. One way of doing this that seems to be common to all requirements is to specify a Service Class parameter and to send this parameter in the various RAS and Call Signaling exchanges. I would like to propose the following Service Class parameter. ServiceClass ::= SEQUENCE { priority CHOICE { emergency, high, normal, low } quality CHOICE ;per TIPHON definition { best, high, medium, bestEffort } } The priority field is used to indicate the importance of the call. This is used not only for assuring that resources can be allocated, but also to improve the probability of completion of the call. The quality field is taken from the ETSI TIPHON QOS Class definitions, and relate to bitrate, codec type, and voice or video quality. High or emergency priority calls may not require best audio quality, medium may be sufficient (even prefered because of the lower bandwidth requirement), while normal priority calls may desire high or best audio quality. The Service Class parameter would then be added to the necessary RAS and Call Signalling messages. At a minimum this would include the ARQ and Setup messages, but might also be applied to others. It is necessary in the ARQ and Setup messages so that High Probability of Completion calls comming into the network from the PSTN can be given priority treatment. For priority dial tone, perhaps the Service Class should be included in the RRQ to indicate the desired priority, once authenticated by the Gatekeeper and confirmed in the RCF, this endpoint could then include that Service Class in subsequent ARQ and Setup messages. Is a token required from the Gatekeeper to indicate that the endpoint has been granted priority status???? For priority call completion, an authentication authority and procedure needs to be defined. One approach is for the call to be made to an access number, the user is then queried for a PIN and the called endpoint number. After authentication, the call would be transfered to the called endpoint. The transfered call would be placed using the Service Class provided by the athentication authority. This would be the same procedure for any calling card call made on the packet network. The Service Class would be based on teh service level agreement between the card user and the provider. In the case of an emergency caller, the SLA would indicate Emergency Priority. How are calling card calls handled on packet networks now???? Is this consistent??? I would appreciate any input that you could provide. Gary -------------------------------------------- Name : Gary A. Thom Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc. Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3 Horsham, PA 19044 USA Phone : +1-215-657-5270 x123 Fax : +1-215-657-5273 E-mail : gthom(a)delta-info.com Website: www.delta-info.com -------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 1

Re: Latest H.245
by OKUBO Sakae 30 Apr '01

30 Apr '01

Dear Mike and all, >Dear Mr Bigi, > >Please find attached text for H.245 version 8. Please enter this as a WP2TD. > >As usual the zip file contains clean text, full delta document and minimal >delta document. Changes are relative to version 7. > >Best regards The file H245_P.zip has been placed at the 0105_Por directory. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO ********************************************************** Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University Waseda University Bldg. 29-7 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp Tel: +81 3 3204 8194 Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 ********************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Binary Encoding of H.245 Related Properties given in Table C/ H.248
by Tom-PT Taylor 30 Apr '01

30 Apr '01

H.248 Annex C uses BER. > -----Original Message----- > From: Muhammad Mukarram Bin Tariq [mailto:mmukarrams@YAHOO.COM] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:53 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Binary Encoding of H.245 Related Properties given in Table > C/H.248 > > > Dear All, > > My question is regarding the encoding of the H.245 related > properties listed in > Table C/H.248. I presume that all these property values are > encoded according > to PER. Also that the entire MultimediaSystemControlPDU is > encoded, instead of > just the message structure. e.g to encode an OLC, we should > encode the entire > MultimediaSystemControlPDU that contains the OLC message, or > just the OLC > message structure. > > I am asking this question because in the presence of "Tags" > it is quite > possible to live without encoding the entire > MultimediaSystemControlPDU. > > Regards, > > Muhammad Mukarram Bin Tariq > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com >

3 2

Re: FW: Emergency Services and Service classes
by Folts, Harold 30 Apr '01

30 Apr '01

Ken, Many thanks for your comments. I think that they are very important to be inclusive of the many considerations for emergency communications including 911/999/211 calls as well MLPP (preemption). I am also sending this to the SG16 experts list as there has been quite a bit of discussion to Gary's Email there. Hal > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:20 AM > To: Folts, Harold > Cc: Gary Thom (E-mail) > Subject: Re: FW: Emergency Services and Service classes > > > > Hello, > > My apologies for the tardiness of this response. In looking at Gary's > original message, I thought I might chime in and introduce some food > for thought. > > in Gary's message, he suggested the following: > > > I would like to propose the following Service Class parameter. > > > > ServiceClass ::= SEQUENCE > > { > > priority CHOICE > > { > > emergency, > > high, > > normal, > > low > > } > > quality CHOICE ;per TIPHON definition > > { > > best, > > high, > > medium, > > bestEffort > > } > > } > > I was thinking that it may be better to add another value in the > 'priority' field in order to distinguish 'authorized' emergency calls > like GETS, versus generic emergency calls like 911 that would be used > by the general public and not require special PIN numbers, or other > additional measures to denote authentication and authorization. > > so, perhaps one might have something like: > > > priority CHOICE > > { > > authorized-emergency, > > emergency, > > high, > > normal, > > low > > } > > also, would it be of value to have a separate field that distinguishes > "classification" of priority? For instance, the above would be the > generic > type used for global/national PSTN. But there is also the MLPP (from > ANSII?) that has 5 levels of priority, but is not used in the > PSTN, but > rather private voice nets like Autovon. > > My feeling is that having a separate field that differentiates normal > PSTN versus private-MLPP may be helpful and less confusing than having > a single "priority" field that covers all defined values of priority. > > However, if you think this may be too cumbersome, then maybe we should > look into adding 5 additional values that relate directly to MLPP, > thus having a field of 10 values in the above. > > For the following... > > > The priority field is used to indicate the importance of the > > call. This is > > used not only for assuring that resources can be allocated, > > but also to > > improve the probability of completion of the call. > > I was wondering if it might be better to start off by saying that > the values in the priority field denote a "distinction" of the types > of calls that can be made. The reason I state this is that there may > be cases where traffic engineering separates the routes that calls > make, but does not place any additional resources per type. This > line of thinking would reflect the cases where preemption is not used, > but rather higher probability is. > > After stating the point on distinction, then one could talk about > the allocation of resource with respect to preemption and quality, > on which you talk about next. > > > > quality CHOICE ;per TIPHON definition > > { > > best, > > high, > > medium, > > bestEffort > > } > > for the above, you may want to inc;ude a value called > "BelowBestEffort". > I have a paper that makes an arguement for doing this at times, and I > have recently come across others that are trying to promote this. In > addition, it may correlate nicely to the above priority of "low". It > may also correlate to the drop precedence field in IP packets (for > diff-serv) when a flow/call exceeds the traffic rate originally > negotiated for it. > > regards, > > -ken > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: version
by Al Varney 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

1 0

Re: version
by Michael Brown 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

Based on the date on the download page at the ITU site, the English version was posted Feb 8, 2001. They have PDF, Word and zipped Word files. For those interested, the French and Spanish versions are also available at that site. The cost shown for the document is 55 Swiss Francs. -----Original Message----- From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:51 AM To: Brown, Michael [NC1:GW10:EXCH]; megaco(a)fore.com Cc: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: RE: version Really? When did that happen? Brian -----Original Message----- From: Michael Brown [mailto:C.Michael.Brown@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:55 AM To: megaco(a)fore.com Subject: RE: version Actually, I was looking at the ITU web site and noticed that H.248 has now been published. -----Original Message----- From: Rosen, Brian [ mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com <mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> ] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:51 AM To: 'mu lj'; megaco(a)fore.com Subject: RE: version RFC3015 is the only "official" released version of Megaco/H.248, and is called "Version 1". Recommendation H.248 has not yet emerged from the publication queue at ITU, but is identical (except for boilerplate) to RFC3015. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: mu lj [ mailto:dtxlymlj@hotmail.com <mailto:dtxlymlj@hotmail.com> ] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:22 AM > To: megaco(a)fore.com > Subject: version > > > hi > which h.248's version refer to rfc3015. > which's h.248's version now. > > Regards > Lingjiang Mu > ______________________________________________________________ > ___________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com <http://www.hotmail.com> . >

1 0

Re: version
by Rosen, Brian 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

Really? When did that happen? Brian -----Original Message----- From: Michael Brown [mailto:C.Michael.Brown@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:55 AM To: megaco(a)fore.com Subject: RE: version Actually, I was looking at the ITU web site and noticed that H.248 has now been published. -----Original Message----- From: Rosen, Brian [ mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com <mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> ] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:51 AM To: 'mu lj'; megaco(a)fore.com Subject: RE: version RFC3015 is the only "official" released version of Megaco/H.248, and is called "Version 1". Recommendation H.248 has not yet emerged from the publication queue at ITU, but is identical (except for boilerplate) to RFC3015. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: mu lj [ mailto:dtxlymlj@hotmail.com <mailto:dtxlymlj@hotmail.com> ] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:22 AM > To: megaco(a)fore.com > Subject: version > > > hi > which h.248's version refer to rfc3015. > which's h.248's version now. > > Regards > Lingjiang Mu > ______________________________________________________________ > ___________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com <http://www.hotmail.com> . >

1 0

AW: B.3.1/H.245v8 - Error in the description of the encryptionSyn c field
by Euchner Martin 27 Apr '01

27 Apr '01

Frank, below is the full text what H.245 Section B.3.1 says about the encryptionSync field: The encryptionSync field shall be used by the master when acknowledging the opening of a channel by a slave. It is used to provide the encryption key value and the synchronization point at which the key should be used. For H.323, the syncFlag shall be set to the RTP dynamic payload number which matches the key. H.235 Section 8.5 describes the use and purpose of encryptionSync: During the protocol exchange that establishes the logical channel, the encryption key shall be passed from the master to the slave (regardless of who initiated the OpenLogicalChannel). For media channels opened by an endpoint (other than the master), the master shall return the initial encryption key and the initial synchronization point in the OpenLogicalChannelAck (in the encryptionSync field). For media channels opened by the master, the OpenLogicalChannel shall include the initial encryption key and the synchronization point in the encryptionSync field. My understanding is that encryptionSync is part of the OLC-Ack message. As such, encryptionSync implicitly acknowledges the OpenLogicalChannel, although of course actually the OpenLogicalChannelAck is intended to explicitly acknowledge the OpenLogicalChannel. Thus, I do not really see an error. Does this answer your question? Do you see need for further clarification of either passage? Kind Regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Martin Euchner Fax : +49 89 722 46841 | Siemens AG | ICN M NT 5 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de <mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de> | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int <mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int> | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/network_technology/security/pki.htm | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de <http://www.siemens.de> | __________________ | Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Frank Derks [SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] Gesendet am: Freitag, 27. April 2001 10:44 An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Betreff: B.3.1/H.245v8 - Error in the description of the encryptionSync field B.3.1/H.245 describes the use of fields in the openLogicalChannel message. The text about the encryptionSync field looks like a literal copy of the corresponding text for the OpenLogicalChannelAck message. This would not seem to be correct, because it talks about the acknowledgement of the opening of a channel by the slave. Shouldn't the text read: "The encryptionSync field is (shall?) used by the master to provide the ebcryption key value and the synchronization point at which the key should be used. ....." Regards, Frank ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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