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

Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Hi, Everyone: Question Q.F/16 of ITU-T SG16 is fully dedicated for developing standards for "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications". Contributions are also being under discussion in the ITU-T SG16 Brazil May 28 - June 8, 2001 meeting. Applications like H.323, SIP, H.324, H.310, and others will also be able to use this Q.F/16's QOS signaling protocol. MEGACO/H.248 and BICC will also be able to use this when specs are fully developed and, TIPHON's QOS mechanisms can also be used as one of the mechanisms for implementations. BICC and MEGCAO/H.248 are only used as the protocol between the gateways, NOT end-to-end (although SIP/H.323 or other protocols may be used between the gateways). The "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications" of SG16 can also be termed as "Application Layer QOS." Q.F/16's end-to-end application layer QOS can also be implemented over the network layer QOS like RSVP, DiffServe, and/or MPLS after proper mapping. Similar is the case for the ATM network. Please note that the network layer QOS (e.g., RSVP, DiffServe, and/or MPLS) may or may not have the end-to-end significance. For example, an IP network may implement different QOS schemes in different domains (e.g., RVSP in one domain, DiffServ in another domain). However, the application layer QOS is end-to-end that remains the same. For example, an H.323 or SIP call that can traverse several IP domains where each domain may implement its own network layer QOS schemes while the H.323/SIP call carry the signaling messages and QOS parameters end-to-end independent of the underlying network layer QOS mechanisms. Let us work together. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Greg Ratta [mailto:gratta@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:22 PM To: sob(a)harvard.edu; mankin(a)isi.edu Cc: diffserv(a)ietf.org; iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com; issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu; megaco(a)fore.com; sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com; sipping(a)ietf.org; tsvwg(a)ietf.org; Yukio Hiramatsu; rbuhrke(a)lucent.com; tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch; tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch Subject: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR END-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL This message was agreed to at ITU-T Study Group 11 meeting (Geneva, May 2001) and is being transmitted on behalf of Yukio Hiramatsu, Chairman of ITU-T SG 11. For further technical clarification, contact the Rapporteur for Q9/11 (Rolfe Buhrke, Tel: + 1 630 713 7022, { HYPERLINK mailto:rburke@lucent.com }rbuhrke(a)lucent.com) FULL TITLE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR END-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL AND SIGNALLING PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON IP TRANSFER CAPABILITIES AND IP QOS CLASSES General Within ITU-T SG11 work has started on requirements for a generic protocol mechanism for end-to-end QoS service control. It was agreed within SG11 to proceed with this work utilising deliverables of ETSI TIPHON on end- to-end QoS service control as base material. It is the opinion of SG11 that this generic protocol mechanism for BICC intends to apply also to other protocols like SIP/SDP and H.323 next to generic extensions to the H.248/MEGACO protocol. It was noted that also QoS related work is in progress in IETF. Please find attached an initial draft of the BICC CS3 signalling requirements for end-to-end QoS service control. Please note the rationale for this activity and the framework for end-to-end QoS service control and network QoS control. The framework illustrates the field of application of the QoS handling at different levels and the different protocols involved. Proposals on end-to-end QoS service control It is proposed to start a joint activity with IETF on a generic protocol mechanism for end- to-end QoS service control. This refers to the potential work in IETF on the following topics: - Identification of the signalling requirements based on the ETSI TIPHON defined speech QoS service classes for VoIP and the signalling and control of end-to-end QoS for VoIP. The attachment provides the initial draft of the BICC CS3 signalling requirements for end-to-end QoS service control. - The definition of a generic call/bearer control mechanism in H.225/H.245, SIP/SDP and BICC CS3 for end-to-end QoS service control in the application plane. - The definition of generic extensions to H.248/MEGACO for end-to-end QoS service control between the application plane and the transport plane. - The translation between the generic protocol QoS information elements in H.248/MEGACO and the technology specific QoS parameters and QoS mechanisms in IP, ATM, MPLS, etc. Proposals on IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilities ITU-T SG11 would like to inform IETF that it is investigating signalling requirements for protocol development based on the IP Transfer Capabilities and IP QoS classes, as being defined by ITU-T SG13 in Y.1541 and Y.iptc. The plan is to build upon signalling approaches developed by IETF. We would like to stress that the work on IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilities by ITU-T SG13 is co- ordinated with IETF. ATTACHMENT Initial draft text of the BICC CS3 signalling requirements for end-to-end QoS service control. The ETSI specifications referenced as base material are available at the following URLs: ETSI TS 301 329 part 2, http://docbox.etsi.org/tech- org/tiphon/Document/tiphon/07- drafts/wg5/_Published/DTS05009/V1.1.1/ts_10 1329-2v111p.doc - ETSI TS 301 329 part 3 see http://docbox.etsi.org/tech- org/tiphon/Document/tiphon/07- drafts/wg5/_Published/DTS05003/DTS05003v096.zi p Further information about the ETSI TIPHON project is available at the following URL: - http://webapp.etsi.org/tbhomepage/TBDetails.as p?TB_ID=291&TB_NAME=TIPHON __________________ BICC CS3 signalling requirements for end-to- end QoS service control EDITORS' NOTE: This requirements text for end-to-end QoS service control is a first draft text and requires extensive updating based on liaison activities with other groups 1 Rationale The rationale of the BICC CS3 requirements for end-to-end service control is based on the analysis made by ETSI TIPHON (see the presentation available at the URL: http://docbox.etsi.org/tech- org/tiphon/Document/tiphon/ARCHIVES/2000/05- 200012- Kyoto/WG5%20TIPHON21%20presentation%20Rev1.ppt ). It shows the inter-relationship between the different QoS factors that finally determine the perceived speech quality by the end- users. This perceived speech quality does not only depend on network quality of service (network packet loss, network jitter and network delay) but on the terminal implementation (jitter buffers and codec performance) as well. A second rationale is that end-to-end QoS requirements can be regarded as end-to-end quality budgets related to the media flows. To achieve the required end-to-end QoS these quality budgets must be allocated between the domains, including the user equipment (see Figure 7 in ETSI TS 301 329 part 3). The Transport QoS Parameters specify the QoS budgets for each Transport Domain. It is assumed that the performance of each domain is statistically independent from any other. Therefore end-to-end QoS service control at the call control level (i.e. application plane) is required based on generic signalling procedures in protocols like BICC, SIP/SDP, H.323 and H.248/MEGACO for end-to- end QoS service control. 2 Framework for end-to-end QoS service control and network QoS control. A framework for QoS control may be considered at different levels: call control (BICC, SIP/SDP, H.323), vertical control (H.248/MEGACO, CBC), bearer control (IP BCP) and bearer (DiffServ, IntServ/RSVP or MPLS/LDP). 1) Call-control a) End-to-end QoS service control is negotiated/communicated end-to-end at the call control level. ETSI TIPHON has defined a set of speech QoS classes, and signalling requirements and flows for this purpose. The idea is that call control protocols are enhanced with a generic end-to-end QoS service control mechanism to negotiate these speech QoS classes and associated parameters (Maximum delay, Maximum packet delay variation, Maximum packet loss, Peak bit rate and Maximum packet size). Such a generic end-to-end QoS service control mechanism should be defined independent of the underlying technology (ATM or IP) and operate across network domains and including terminal characteristics to negotiate/communicate the requested listener speech quality that will be perceived by the end-users (i.e. "mouth-to-ear"). b) BICC (Q.190x) is one of the call control protocols that may be enhanced this way. Similar enhancements may be applicable to other call-control protocols like SIP/SDP and H.323. 2) Vertical control a) QoS service control is also negotiated/communicated at the vertical control level. The ETSI TIPHON defined signalling requirements and flows include the vertical interface. The idea is that vertical control protocols are enhanced to negotiate/communicate the QoS settings (Maximum delay, Maximum packet delay variation, Maximum packet loss, Peak bit rate and Maximum packet size) in the bearer core network based on generic H.248/MEGACO extensions. These QoS settings should be defined independent of the underlying technology (ATM or IP) of the bearer core network. b) CBC (Q.1950) is one of the vertical control protocols that may be enhanced this way. 3) Bearer control a) Network QoS is negotiated/communicated at the bearer control level. ATM signalling does already intrinsically support network QoS. SG13 has recently defined IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilities. The idea is that bearer control protocols for IP are enhanced with a mechanism to negotiate the network QoS by using IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilities. b) IP BCP (Q.1970) is an IP bearer control protocol that may be enhanced this way. 4) Bearer a) Network QoS is negotiated/communicated at the bearer level, i.e. as part of the protocols associated with the bearers in the core network. The idea is that IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilties, as defined by SG13, are used to differentiate between different types of IP traffic. b) IP QoS classes and IP Transfer Capabilities may be used to enhance existing IP mechanisms like DiffServ, IntServ/RSVP and MPLS/LDP. 3 QoS information flows applicable to BICC A general model is considered for QoS information flows with BICC when making a translation of the relevant parts in Figure 8 in ETSI TS 301 329 part 3. Section 4 details the Q.BICC related QoS primitives and parameters based on the QoS primitives and parameters in the ETSI deliverable. Similarly, section 5 provides the Q.CBC related QoS primitives and parameters. 4 Q.BICC related QoS primitives and parameters The Q.BICC related QoS primitives and parameters are extracted from clause 8.1 and clause 8.2 of ETSI TS 101 329 part 3. 4.1 Q.BICC related QoS primitives This information flow (QC2 in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3) communicates the QoS related bearer information between the domains of different service providers. Q.BICC QoS request (Qbicc.QoSreq) requests the establishment of a bearer conforming to a particular ETSI TIPHON Class of Service or with defined QoS characteristics. NOTE Identical to QoSM request (QC2.QoSMreq) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.1. Q.BICC QoS confirm (Qbicc.QoSconf) acknowledges the creation of a bearer conforming to a requested ETSI TIPHON QoS Class or with specified QoS characteristics. NOTE Identical to QoSM confirm (QC2.QoSMconf) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.1. Q.BICC QoS reject (Qbicc.QoSrej) rejects the creation of a bearer conforming to a requested ETSI TIPHON QoS Class or with specified QoS characteristics. NOTE Identical to QoSM reject (QC2.QoSMrej) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.1. Q.BICC release request (Qbicc.QoSrelreq) requests the release of a bearer. NOTE Identical to QoSM release request (QC2.QoSMrelreq) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.1 and the release of a transport flow is already covered by existing Q.BICC procedures in Q.1902 series. QoSM release confirm (Qbicc.QoSrelconf) confirms the release of a bearer. NOTE Identical to QoSM release confirm (QC2.QoSMrelconf) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.1 and the release of a transport flow is already covered by existing Q.BICC procedures in Q.1902 series. 4.2 Q.BICC related QoS parameters Table 1 lists the parameters used in the Q.BICC related QoS primitives not yet covered by the Q.BICC protocol. The deleted items refer to the information elements already covered by the BICC CS2 protocol in the Q.1902 series. NOTE The contents of Table 1 is an interpretation of the table in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.2.3. Table 1: Identification of Q.BICC related parameters for end-to-end QoS service control Qbicc.QoSreq QoS Service Class Optional Codec Type and Packetisation Mandatory Transport QoS Parameters Mandatory Traffic Descriptor Optional Transport Addresses Mandatory Application Data Transport Protocol Optional [Default RTP] Packet Transport Protocol Optional [Default UDP] QoS Mechanism Optional Qbicc.QoSconf QoS Service Class Optional Codec Type and Packetisation Mandatory Transport QoS Parameters Mandatory Transport Addresses Mandatory Application Data Transport Protocol Optional [Default RTP] Packet Transport Protocol Optional [Default UDP] Qbicc.QoSrej Reason [TBD] Mandatory 5 Q.CBC related QoS primitives and parameters The Q.CBC related QoS primitives and parameters are extracted from clause 8.1 and clause 8.2 of ETSI TS 101 329 part 3. 5.1 Q.CBC related QoS primitives This information flow (QT2 in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3) communicates the QoS related transport flow information between a service domain and an associated transport domain. This information contains the QoS related characteristics required of the transport flows that will carry the media flow and the properties of the media flow. Q.CBC QoS request (Qcbc.QoSreq) requests the establishment of a transport flow with defined QoS characteristics across a Transport Domain or the reservation of Transport Domain resource. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS request (QT2.TRMQreq) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. Q.CBC QoS confirm (Qcbc.QoSconf) acknowledges the creation of a requested transport flow or the reservation of Transport Domain resource. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS confirm (QT2.TRMQconf) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. Q.CBC QoS reject (Qcbc.QoSrej) rejects the creation of a requested transport flow or the reservation of Transport Domain resource. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS reject (QT2.TRMQrej) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. Q.CBC QoS release request (Qcbc.QoSrelreq) requests the release of a transport flow. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS release request (QT2.TRM QoS relreq) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. The release of a transport flow is already covered by the existing Q.CBC procedures in Q.1950. Q.CBC QoS release confirm (Qcbc.QoSrelconf) confirms the release of a transport flow. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS release confirm (QT2.TRM QoS relconf) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. The release of a transport flow is already covered by the existing Q.CBC procedures in Q.1950. Q.CBC QoS performance notification (Qcbc.QoSperfnotif) notifies the Service Domain of the performance of the Transport Domain in meeting the requested QoS levels. This may be a periodic event or an urgent alarm. Note: this primitive is a management primitive and its use is for further study. NOTE Identical to TRM QoS performance notification (QT2.TRM QoS perfnotif) in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.1.3. For further study. 5.2 Q.CBC related QoS parameters Table 2 lists the parameters used in the Q.CBC related QoS primitives not yet covered by the Q.CBC protocol. The deleted items refer to the information elements already covered by the BICC CS2 protocol in Q.1950. NOTE The contents of Table 2 is an interpretation of the table in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.2.5. Table 2: Identification of Q.CBC related parameters for end-to-end QoS service control QT2.TRMQreq Transport QoS Parameters Mandatory Traffic Descriptor Mandatory Transport Addresses Mandatory Packet Transport Protocol Optional [Default UDP] QT2.TRMQconf Transport QoS Parameters Mandatory Transport Addresses Mandatory Packet Transport Protocol Optional [Default UDP] QoS Mechanism Optional QT2.TRMQrej Reason [TBD] Mandatory 6 Parameter contents Table 3 specifies the information to be covered by the parameters listed in sections 4.2 and 5.2 based on the QoS parameter groups in ETSI TS 101 329 part 3 clause 8.2.1. Table 3: Identification of parameter contents for end-to-end QoS service control QoS Service Class Describes the end-to-end ETSI TIPHON Best, High, Medium class of a beareror Best Effort Transport QoS Specifies the QoS characteristics Maximum Delay Parameters required of the transport flow carrying the media flow. Maximum Packet Delay Variation Maximum Packet Loss Traffic Descriptor Characterises the resource Peak Bit requirements of an application data flow (excludes transport flow Maximum Packet Size resource requirements). Parameters specifying the ETSI TIPHON QoS Class as defined in ETSI TS 101 329 Part 2 The maximum delay permitted (ms) over either a segment of the transport flow or the remaining part of the transport flow. The maximum packet delay variation permitted (ms) over either a segment of the transport flow or the remaining part of the transport flow. The maximum packet loss permitted (%) over either a segment of the transport flow or the remaining part of the transport flow. [N.B. This measure assumes randomly distributed packet loss] Maximum bit rate (bit/s) of the media flow. Maximum size of the media packets 7 Information flows and signalling procedures for end-to-end QoS service control EDITORS' NOTE The information flows and signalling procedures for end-to-end QoS service control may be considered to follow the same principles as the already existing procedures for end-to-end codec negotiation in BICC CS1 and BICC CS2. Similarly mid-call procedures for end-to-end QoS modification and mid-call QoS modification may be considered because the perceived QoS is highly related to the codec type employed end- to-end as part of the connection. The exact scope and properties of these procedures and protocol message flows needs further discussion. Greg Ratta, Vice Chairman, ITU-T SG 11, Signalling requirements and protocols Lucent Technologies Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, gratta(a)lucent.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Bob Braden 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

*> From owner-issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 30 14:59:58 2001 *> From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA" <rrroy(a)att.com> *> To: gratta(a)lucent.com, sob(a)harvard.edu, mankin(a)ISI.EDU *> Cc: diffserv(a)ietf.org, iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com, issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu, *> megaco(a)fore.com, sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com, sipping(a)ietf.org, tsvwg(a)ietf.org, *> Yukio Hiramatsu *> <hiramatsu.yukio(a)lab.ntt.co.jp>, rbuhrke(a)lucent.com, *> tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch, tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch, ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM *> Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E *> ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL *> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:21:14 -0400 *> MIME-Version: 1.0 *> *> Hi, Everyone: *> *> Question Q.F/16 of ITU-T SG16 is fully dedicated for developing standards *> for "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications". Contributions are also *> being under discussion in the ITU-T SG16 Brazil May 28 - June 8, 2001 *> meeting. This is very confusing. "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications" is an really important topic, but this topic must be a superset of "End-to-End QOS signaling". There are much harder problems than signaling in providing E2E QoS. Can you explain how signaling relates to the title of this working party? Thanks, Bob Braden *> *> Applications like H.323, SIP, H.324, H.310, and others will also be able to *> use this Q.F/16's QOS signaling protocol. MEGACO/H.248 and BICC will also be *> able to use this when specs are fully developed and, TIPHON's QOS mechanisms *> can also be used as one of the mechanisms for implementations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA 31 May '01

31 May '01

Hi, Baker: It appears that a good amount discussion can be started to answer your questions (what has being discussed for the last couple of years in the ITU-T and TIPHON in particular). I am not trying to do so. Let me answer your questions summarizing the key points as follows: 1. Broadly, all applications can be considered in two categories: a. Real-time (e.g., audio, video [of H.323/SIP]) and b. Non-Real-time (e.g., data applications like file transfer, WWW, Mail, etc. - can a part of H.323/SIP). The performance parameters of both real-time (audio, video) and non-real-time (data) traffic can be abstracted in an universal way that can be used by all applications (e.g., H.323, SIP, WWW, mail, etc). However, the signaling messages used by each application are application-specific although the QOS parameters used by all of them still remain same (e.g., H.323 might use RAS/Q.931/Annex-G/H.245 signaling messages, SIP might use SDP). The QOS signaling messages that use QOS parameters can be termed as the application layer QOS signaling messages and are sent on end-to-end basis and the values of those QOS parameters do not change no matter what may be the underlying transport networks (e.g., IP, ATM). 2. The network layer QOS signaling messages carried over the network may not be end-to-end significance. For example, an end-to-end path of an IP network may consist of RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, and RSVP. So, the network layer QOS parameters may get translated between the source-destination path and may not remain the same what has been negotiated on end-to-end basis in the application layer (item 1). The problems that are being addressed are as follows: A. How to develop the end-to-end QOS signaling mechanisms in the application layer B. How to relate the application layer QOS signaling to the network layer QOS signaling (e.g., RSVP, DifServ, MPLS, etc.) so that one-to-one consistency remain between the application and network layer QOS parameters. Hope this may clarify some of your questions. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:09 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA Cc: Bob Braden; gratta(a)lucent.com; sob(a)harvard.edu; mankin(a)isi.edu; diffserv(a)ietf.org; iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com; issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu; megaco(a)fore.com; sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com; sipping(a)ietf.org; tsvwg(a)ietf.org; hiramatsu.yukio(a)lab.ntt.co.jp; rbuhrke(a)lucent.com; tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch; tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL At 06:08 AM 5/31/2001, Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA wrote: >All applications (e.g., H.323, SIP) uses signaling messages >among its functional entities (e.g., terminal, agents, >gatekeepers, proxies, gateways) for communications. I'm not sure we're on the same planet. Please help me out here. I can think of a few applications that have agents, gatekeepers, proxies, and gateways, mostly resulting from the imposition of firewalls or authentication systems, or from legacy applications like imitating the telephone system in a data network. The only one that *requires* any kind of gateway, to my knowledge, is H.323 teleconferencing, which represents a paltry fraction of traffic according to most current measurements. Anything else (75% of Internet traffic is http or FTP, most of the rest is mail, on private LANs applications like NFS are pretty common, and even SIP can be done without a gateway between consenting systems) could be hooked up in separate systems on a LAN and made to work without any such signalling at all. Could you be more specific on what QoS signalling is required by the world wide web, mail, FTP, common ERP applications like ERP and PeopleSoft, calendaring, and so on? If not, could you be more specific about what "all" applications you have in mind? And could you be more specific about what issues this proposal is addressing that have not already been addressed in de facto standards and deployed in operational systems? It would be very nice to understand what you are preparing to ask vendors to do, and whether operators are interested in deploying them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

[Tsvwg] RE: [Sipping] RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL M ECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Rosen, Brian 31 May '01

31 May '01

Folks, this thread may or may not be the start of something good or evil, but it is going out to too many lists! Please, as of now, let's move it to one, and only one list. I nominate tsvwg. If you are replying to any message on this thread, PLEASE edit the to/cc to limit it to tsvwg(a)ietf.org Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:09 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA > Cc: Bob Braden; gratta(a)lucent.com; sob(a)harvard.edu; mankin(a)isi.edu; > diffserv(a)ietf.org; iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com; > issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu; > megaco(a)fore.com; sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com; sipping(a)ietf.org; > tsvwg(a)ietf.org; hiramatsu.yukio(a)lab.ntt.co.jp; rbuhrke(a)lucent.com; > tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch; tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch; > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM > Subject: [Sipping] RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL > MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL > > > At 06:08 AM 5/31/2001, Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA wrote: > >All applications (e.g., H.323, SIP) uses signaling messages > >among its functional entities (e.g., terminal, agents, > >gatekeepers, proxies, gateways) for communications. > > I'm not sure we're on the same planet. Please help me out here. > > I can think of a few applications that have agents, > gatekeepers, proxies, > and gateways, mostly resulting from the imposition of firewalls or > authentication systems, or from legacy applications like > imitating the > telephone system in a data network. The only one that > *requires* any kind > of gateway, to my knowledge, is H.323 teleconferencing, which > represents a > paltry fraction of traffic according to most current > measurements. Anything > else (75% of Internet traffic is http or FTP, most of the > rest is mail, on > private LANs applications like NFS are pretty common, and > even SIP can be > done without a gateway between consenting systems) could be > hooked up in > separate systems on a LAN and made to work without any such > signalling at all. > > Could you be more specific on what QoS signalling is required > by the world > wide web, mail, FTP, common ERP applications like ERP and PeopleSoft, > calendaring, and so on? If not, could you be more specific > about what "all" > applications you have in mind? > > And could you be more specific about what issues this proposal is > addressing that have not already been addressed in de facto > standards and > deployed in operational systems? It would be very nice to > understand what > you are preparing to ask vendors to do, and whether operators are > interested in deploying them. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipping mailing list > Sipping(a)ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg(a)ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

1 0

None
by Paul, Manoj 31 May '01

31 May '01

Hi All, I have a question on the use of H.235 Annex D (Baseline Security Profile). According to this profile, except for GRQ/GCF messages, all other RAS messages shall contain a hash value computed using HMAC-SHA1-96 algorightm on the entire RAS message. Consider an endpoint sending RRQ to the Gk. In the clearToken field of RRQ message, the endpoint shall fill generalId as gkId (which it got in GCF) and senderId as it's own epId. EpId is generally returned to the endpoint by the gatekeeper in RCF. That means that an endpoint may not have an epId while sending RRQ to Gk. In such a case, how it is supposed to fill the senderId and compute the hash value on complete RRQ message? Any pointers are appreciated. thanks Manoj Paul. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323?
by Paul, Manoj 31 May '01

31 May '01

Hi Frank, You are right. Annex L does not use the supportedH248Packages to specify the H.248 package support. As you mentioned, it is meant to be associated with H.248 signals in serviceControlSession which Gk may use to feed tones to the endpoint. regards Manoj. -----Original Message----- From: frank.derks(a)philips.com [mailto:frank.derks@philips.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:38 PM To: mpaul(a)trillium.com Cc: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323? Hi Manoj, am I to assume that the first "context" you mention is the use of H.248 _Signals_ in serviceControlSession elements and that the third "context" refers to the use of H248Packages in the supportedH248Packages element in the RRQ? I assumed, but this may be wrong on second thoughts, that these two uses were tied together. I.e. supportedH248Packages specifies from which packages _signals_ may be used. supportedH248Packages is not required (and should not be used) for Annex L, as an Audit command can be used to obtain the supported packages. Regards, Frank ----------------------------------------------------- Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | ServWare |Fax +31 35 6891030 | Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | |1200 JD Hilversum | |The Netherlands | ----------------------------------------------------| E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | ----------------------------------------------------- mpaul(a)trillium.com on 30-05-2001 19:04:57 To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM@SMTP Frank Derks/HVS/BE/PHILIPS@EMEA2 cc: Subject: RE: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323? Classification: Hi Frank, H.248 appears in H.323 in three contexts 1) Credit card tones and announcements from Gk. 2) Annex L 3) Endpoints reporting their H248 PackageDescriptors to Gks in RRQ. Although Annex L defined H.248 messages as Octet Strings, the other two imported H.248 syntax. There was a proposal in last SG16 meeting to change them to Octet Strings as well for the reasons- Those who were not willing to support H.248 functionality, would not have to import the H.248 syntax (For Signals and Pacakges for (1) and (3) above). Also these octet strings were proposed to contain PER encoded H.248. (Text in addition for Annex L) to allow single encoding and decoding scheme, namely PER for H.323. I believe, it is due to lightweight reasons (as you pointed out), that ServiceControlSession also contained H.248 Signals which could as well be transported using Annex L. regards Manoj. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Derks [mailto:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:24 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323? There are two ways in which H.248 can be used in H.323. One way is through Annex L Stimulus Signalling, which basically "tunnels" H.248 messages in H.225.0 Call Signalling Messages (although Annex L only speaks about "commands", I assume that "replies" may also be carried). Another way of carrying H.248 is through the serviceControlSession element, which can be transported in most of the Call Signalling messages and some of the RAS messages. Using this mechanism, however, introduces a limitation in that only H.248 _signals_ may be transported. If the idea behind the second approach is to have a "lightweight" way of using only some of H.248's functionality, then I wonder why H.248 _events_ were not included as part of the solution. 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

Re: H.323 Annex D v2
by Francois Audet 31 May '01

31 May '01

It is in ITU-T H.323v4 (2000): http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/approved/h/h323.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Viens [mailto:hviens@MEDIATRIX.COM] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:04 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.323 Annex D v2 > > > Hi Folks! > Does anyone could tell me where I could found H.323 Annex D > v2 (with H.323 > v4) ? > Thanks, > Hans > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com >

1 0

Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Fred Baker 31 May '01

31 May '01

At 06:08 AM 5/31/2001, Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA wrote: >All applications (e.g., H.323, SIP) uses signaling messages >among its functional entities (e.g., terminal, agents, >gatekeepers, proxies, gateways) for communications. I'm not sure we're on the same planet. Please help me out here. I can think of a few applications that have agents, gatekeepers, proxies, and gateways, mostly resulting from the imposition of firewalls or authentication systems, or from legacy applications like imitating the telephone system in a data network. The only one that *requires* any kind of gateway, to my knowledge, is H.323 teleconferencing, which represents a paltry fraction of traffic according to most current measurements. Anything else (75% of Internet traffic is http or FTP, most of the rest is mail, on private LANs applications like NFS are pretty common, and even SIP can be done without a gateway between consenting systems) could be hooked up in separate systems on a LAN and made to work without any such signalling at all. Could you be more specific on what QoS signalling is required by the world wide web, mail, FTP, common ERP applications like ERP and PeopleSoft, calendaring, and so on? If not, could you be more specific about what "all" applications you have in mind? And could you be more specific about what issues this proposal is addressing that have not already been addressed in de facto standards and deployed in operational systems? It would be very nice to understand what you are preparing to ask vendors to do, and whether operators are interested in deploying them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

H.323 Annex D v2
by Hans Viens 31 May '01

31 May '01

Hi Folks! Does anyone could tell me where I could found H.323 Annex D v2 (with H.323 v4) ? Thanks, Hans ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA 31 May '01

31 May '01

Hi, Bob: All applications (e.g., H.323, SIP) uses signaling messages among its functional entities (e.g., terminal, agents, gatekeepers, proxies, gateways) for communications. The signaling messages that carry QOS parameters are treated as QOS signaling messages. The applications like SIP and H.323 send signaling messages end-to-end. H.323 uses H.225.0 RAS, Q.931, Annex G, and H.245 signaling protocols. SIP also uses SDP as a part of the signaling messages. The signaling messages that carry QOS related information can be treated as "End-to-End QOS signaling" messages. Kindly see the ongoing works of Q.F/16 of SG16. This will provide more information related to your questions. Hope this helps. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy -----Original Message----- From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:39 PM To: gratta(a)lucent.com; sob(a)harvard.edu; mankin(a)ISI.EDU; Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA Cc: diffserv(a)ietf.org; iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com; issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu; megaco(a)fore.com; sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com; sipping(a)ietf.org; tsvwg(a)ietf.org; hiramatsu.yukio(a)lab.ntt.co.jp; rbuhrke(a)lucent.com; tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch; tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL *> From owner-issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 30 14:59:58 2001 *> From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA" <rrroy(a)att.com> *> To: gratta(a)lucent.com, sob(a)harvard.edu, mankin(a)ISI.EDU *> Cc: diffserv(a)ietf.org, iptel(a)lists.bell-labs.com, issll(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu, *> megaco(a)fore.com, sip(a)lists.bell-labs.com, sipping(a)ietf.org, tsvwg(a)ietf.org, *> Yukio Hiramatsu *> <hiramatsu.yukio(a)lab.ntt.co.jp>, rbuhrke(a)lucent.com, *> tsg11q8(a)ties.itu.ch, tsg11q9(a)ties.itu.ch, ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM *> Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E *> ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL *> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:21:14 -0400 *> MIME-Version: 1.0 *> *> Hi, Everyone: *> *> Question Q.F/16 of ITU-T SG16 is fully dedicated for developing standards *> for "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications". Contributions are also *> being under discussion in the ITU-T SG16 Brazil May 28 - June 8, 2001 *> meeting. This is very confusing. "End-to-End QOS for Multimedia Applications" is an really important topic, but this topic must be a superset of "End-to-End QOS signaling". There are much harder problems than signaling in providing E2E QoS. Can you explain how signaling relates to the title of this working party? Thanks, Bob Braden *> *> Applications like H.323, SIP, H.324, H.310, and others will also be able to *> use this Q.F/16's QOS signaling protocol. MEGACO/H.248 and BICC will also be *> able to use this when specs are fully developed and, TIPHON's QOS mechanisms *> can also be used as one of the mechanisms for implementations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0