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

Re: Annex Gv2
by Reddy, Paul K 22 May '01

22 May '01

Paul, With respect to two questions mentioned below on interaction between GK and BE, I agree with you that they are not addressed adequately at this time. Which are needed to be addressed in Q.5/16 (Mobility for Multimedia Systems and services) for H.MMS.1, H.MMS.2, H.MMS.3 recommendations. I welcome the relevant experts input and contributions on this topic to SG16 meeting at Porte Seguro,Brazil. regards, Paul Rapporteur for Q.5/16 -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:14 PM To: Reddy, Paul K; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Re: Annex Gv2 Paul, I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it relates to Q.5 work should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and comments I've received from others relating to reference point D. I believe the latter two issues are most significant. Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK talk to the BE?" and "What good does it do to have the usage information in Annex G when it can't be passed to/from the GK?" Consideration should be given to whether those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) and whether we want to answer those question within the protocol at this time. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reddy, Paul K" <paul.k.reddy(a)INTEL.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > Hi Radhika, > > With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined the Objectives, > scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's meeting > in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 (Mobility for > Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not been decided as of > last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions have come in for > Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for discussion on Mobility > protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or other protocol > etc.) > > PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of H.225.0 Annex Gv2, > if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul > > regards, > Paul > > Paul K. Reddy > Rapporteur for Q.5/16 > Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 > 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, > Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA > Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 > Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 > Email: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > > > Hi, Paul: > > Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as > well as non-mobility as follows: > > 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G > version 2 can be considered for approval. > > 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support > mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered for > approval because of the following: > > a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined > that is consistent with its charter. > > b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a. > > c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other > value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any > application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). > > d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for > H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G. These > are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for each > application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). > > This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. > > Hope this will help. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Annex Gv2 > > > Folks, > > The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this > meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval. I > have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in > the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also have the open > question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. > > For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell me > if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting. > > Thanks, > Paul > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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

Some additional information regarding Brazil II
by Simao Campos-Neto 22 May '01

22 May '01

Dear colleagues, as promised, I am providing you with some details regarding the ground transportation in Porto Seguro. The company responsible for the event has contracted with a local company, "Pool Turismo", to provide a van service from the airport to the docks on the arrival day, and back to the airport in the departure day. This service will cost you R$20.00 (as stated in the Collective Letter 1/16). (NOTE: Additionally, there is a ferry that will transport you from the docks to the hotel and vice versa, which is free-of-cost to people staying in the Paradise Resort Hotel. To commute between the hotel and Porto Seguro proper, you will be using this ferry.) Back to the airport/docks/airport transportation: Pool Turismo is requesting that everyone interested in the service to provide them with some information: 1-Hotel Name: 2-Participant Names: 3-Number of People: 4-Arrival From: Arraival Day-In: Time to Arrival: Flight number: Airline Name: 5-Departure To: Departure Day-Out: Time to Departure: Flight number: Airline Name: This data should be filled in and emailed to itu-tsg16(a)uol.com.br <mailto:itu-tsg16@uol.com.br>. Additional information provided by the company: "- General Condition for the transfer service: E-mail with your confirmation. - Our representative will meet you in the airport. - The transfer charge for people is R$ 20,00 IN/OUT inclusive. - The fee should be paid on arrival at the airport to our representative from Pool Eventos. - Should you change your flight please inform us. - Use the official company to request your service We're here to help you. - If you woud like some optional touristic trips or rent a car, please inform us. - If you have any further enquires please contact us at e-mail. - Contact People in Pool Eventos: Maria Calabrese, Lucio Panerai." Best regards, Simão -- =========================================================================== Simão Ferraz de Campos Neto, Scientist *All comments are strictly my own* LMGT/COMSAT Laboratories Tel: +1-301-428-4516 22300 Comsat Drive Fax: +1-301-428-9287 Clarksburg MD 20871 - USA E-mail: simao.campos(a)labs.comsat.com =========================================================================== ******** Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty ******** ===========================================================================

2 2

AW: Annex Gv2
by Horvath Ernst 22 May '01

22 May '01

Paul, I welcome the proposal not to approve H.225.0 annex G v2 now. In my contribution to Q.5/16 I suggest to make the mobility management protocol a "profile" of the annex G protocol, after adding the few extras that mobility management would require. However, some members strongly oppose to calling mobility management "H.225.0 annex G". Since the arguing is about names rather than content, it would be undesirable to duplicate the work and define nearly identical protocols in two different recommendations. Maybe we can define a "master protocol" in a separate recommendation and then derive various profiles from this master protocol: for the current annex G (reference point A), for reference point B (GK-BE), for mobility management, etc. Regards, Ernst Horvath Siemens AG > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2001 06:14 > An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Betreff: Re: Annex Gv2 > > Paul, > > I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it > relates to Q.5 work > should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the > editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and > comments I've received from others relating to reference > point D. I believe > the latter two issues are most significant. > > Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK > talk to the BE?" > and "What good does it do to have the usage information in > Annex G when it > can't be passed to/from the GK?" Consideration should be > given to whether > those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) > and whether we > want to answer those question within the protocol at this time. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reddy, Paul K" <paul.k.reddy(a)INTEL.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM > Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > > > > Hi Radhika, > > > > With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined > the Objectives, > > scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's > meeting > > in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 > (Mobility for > > Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not > been decided as > of > > last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions > have come in for > > Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for > discussion on Mobility > > protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or > other protocol > > etc.) > > > > PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of > H.225.0 Annex > Gv2, > > if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul > > > > regards, > > Paul > > > > Paul K. Reddy > > Rapporteur for Q.5/16 > > Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 > > 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, > > Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA > > Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 > > Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 > > Email: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > > > > > > Hi, Paul: > > > > Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect > to mobility as > > well as non-mobility as follows: > > > > 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in > H.225.0 Annex G > > version 2 can be considered for approval. > > > > 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention > to support > > mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT > be considered > for > > approval because of the following: > > > > a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs > to be defined > > that is consistent with its charter. > > > > b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance > to item a. > > > > c. All applications can use the common protocol for > HLF/VLF/AuF (and other > > value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will > NOT have any > > application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). > > > > d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to > be done for > > H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + > H.225.0 Annex G. > These > > are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY > (applicable for > each > > application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). > > > > This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. > > > > Hope this will help. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Annex Gv2 > > > > > > Folks, > > > > The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve > Annex G at this > > meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to > warrant approval. > I > > have also heard comments from some that additional work > should be done in > > the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also > have the open > > question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. > > > > For the benefit of those not planning to attend the > meeting, please tell > me > > if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 > at this meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Backward compatability H245Tunneling V4 with V3,2,..
by danlee＠YNNMAIL.COM 22 May '01

22 May '01

According to ver.4 "If the called entity does not yet know if H.245 tunneling can be supported, it shall include the provisionalRespToH245Tunneling flag. This may happen, for example, when a Gatekeeper is responding to a calling entity with a message such as Call Proceeding before the called endpoint responds to the h245Tunneling flag. " The problem arises when the calling entity does not support this flag (i.e., does not yet support ver.4). E.g., 1. Calling entity (let's say ver.3 EP) is sending Setup with indication of the tunneling support. 2. The gatekeeper answers with Call Proceeding including h245Tunneling ==False and provisionalRespToH245Tunneling ==True. 3. The calling entity (that was implemented BEFORE ver.4) will understand this as "tunneling is not supported". 4. But the called entity can send tunneled messages. What we've decided is: 1. To check the supported version of the calling EP. 2. If the version is >=4 than above scenario may be used. 3. Otherwise Call Proceeding will be delayed until getting the information from the called EP. ______________________________________________________________________ Join YnnMail at http://www.ynnmail.com and get your free secure e-mail and 40,000+ newsgroup... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: Annex Gv2
by Roy, Radhika R 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hi, Paul: It is not about "master" protocol per se. It is also NOT the name change (even the name change provides the meets the first step of the fundamental objective because the same protocol can be used by all applications for mobility in the context of HLF/VLF/AUF: H.323, H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, and others - it is also a very big gain). It is the big picture of Q.5/16 how the whole mobility question needs to be addressed. People want to build "inefficient" protocol by duplicating the same thing for the same purpose is against the very fundamental principle of ITU standardization. The protocol used by HLF/VLF/AuF/Billing/QOS/Accounting will NOT be called H.225.0 Annex G. The proposal has been made with the name of simple extensions of some messages of Annex G (as if nothing else is needed here now or in the future) to fulfill the very short-term "narrow" objectives. But it is forgotten that many more things are ahead to address all issues related to mobility. Hope this clarifies the things. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Horvath Ernst [mailto:ernst.horvath@SIEMENS.AT] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:38 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Annex Gv2 Paul, I welcome the proposal not to approve H.225.0 annex G v2 now. In my contribution to Q.5/16 I suggest to make the mobility management protocol a "profile" of the annex G protocol, after adding the few extras that mobility management would require. However, some members strongly oppose to calling mobility management "H.225.0 annex G". Since the arguing is about names rather than content, it would be undesirable to duplicate the work and define nearly identical protocols in two different recommendations. Maybe we can define a "master protocol" in a separate recommendation and then derive various profiles from this master protocol: for the current annex G (reference point A), for reference point B (GK-BE), for mobility management, etc. Regards, Ernst Horvath Siemens AG > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2001 06:14 > An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Betreff: Re: Annex Gv2 > > Paul, > > I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it > relates to Q.5 work > should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the > editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and > comments I've received from others relating to reference > point D. I believe > the latter two issues are most significant. > > Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK > talk to the BE?" > and "What good does it do to have the usage information in > Annex G when it > can't be passed to/from the GK?" Consideration should be > given to whether > those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) > and whether we > want to answer those question within the protocol at this time. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reddy, Paul K" <paul.k.reddy(a)INTEL.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM > Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > > > > Hi Radhika, > > > > With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined > the Objectives, > > scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's > meeting > > in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 > (Mobility for > > Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not > been decided as > of > > last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions > have come in for > > Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for > discussion on Mobility > > protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or > other protocol > > etc.) > > > > PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of > H.225.0 Annex > Gv2, > > if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul > > > > regards, > > Paul > > > > Paul K. Reddy > > Rapporteur for Q.5/16 > > Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 > > 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, > > Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA > > Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 > > Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 > > Email: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 > > > > > > Hi, Paul: > > > > Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect > to mobility as > > well as non-mobility as follows: > > > > 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in > H.225.0 Annex G > > version 2 can be considered for approval. > > > > 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention > to support > > mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT > be considered > for > > approval because of the following: > > > > a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs > to be defined > > that is consistent with its charter. > > > > b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance > to item a. > > > > c. All applications can use the common protocol for > HLF/VLF/AuF (and other > > value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will > NOT have any > > application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). > > > > d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to > be done for > > H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + > H.225.0 Annex G. > These > > are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY > (applicable for > each > > application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). > > > > This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. > > > > Hope this will help. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Annex Gv2 > > > > > > Folks, > > > > The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve > Annex G at this > > meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to > warrant approval. > I > > have also heard comments from some that additional work > should be done in > > the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also > have the open > > question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. > > > > For the benefit of those not planning to attend the > meeting, please tell > me > > if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 > at this meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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: Annex Gv2
by Roy, Radhika R 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hi, Paul: We have seen the meeting minutes of Australia and, have significant differences. For example, it is NOT about "interworking" per se as Mr. Bougant (one of the attendees of Australia meeting) pointed out. We do not want to develop anymore INEFFICIENT "interworking" as proposed by Intel's contributions related to the scope of Q.5/16 in the last Australia Rap. meeting. (While people can use the same protocol without duplication, why do they like to develop another protocol for "interworking"?) Accordingly, emails were also sent out to the Sg16 mailing list voicing our concerns. So, the Brazil Sg16 meeting, per AT&T contributions, need to focus on all subjects that have been described in the contributions. With respect to H.225.0 Annex G, I have made clear what needs to be done. Nothing that relates directly or indirectly to MOBILITY will be considered for approval unless the mobility work is finalized (please see the enclosed email). Hope this clarifies the things. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Reddy, Paul K [mailto:paul.k.reddy@intel.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM To: Roy, Radhika R; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: Annex Gv2 Hi Radhika, With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined the Objectives, scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's meeting in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 (Mobility for Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not been decided as of last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions have come in for Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for discussion on Mobility protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or other protocol etc.) PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of H.225.0 Annex Gv2, if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul regards, Paul Paul K. Reddy Rapporteur for Q.5/16 Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 Email: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 Hi, Paul: Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as well as non-mobility as follows: 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 can be considered for approval. 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered for approval because of the following: a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined that is consistent with its charter. b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a. c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G. These are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for each application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. Hope this will help. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Annex Gv2 Folks, The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval. I have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also have the open question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell me if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting. Thanks, Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Annex Gv2
by Reddy, Paul K 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hi Radhika, With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined the Objectives, scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's meeting in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 (Mobility for Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not been decided as of last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions have come in for Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for discussion on Mobility protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or other protocol etc.) PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of H.225.0 Annex Gv2, if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul regards, Paul Paul K. Reddy Rapporteur for Q.5/16 Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 Email: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2 Hi, Paul: Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as well as non-mobility as follows: 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 can be considered for approval. 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered for approval because of the following: a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined that is consistent with its charter. b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a. c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G. These are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for each application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. Hope this will help. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Annex Gv2 Folks, The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval. I have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also have the open question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell me if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting. Thanks, Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: Annex Gv2
by Roy, Radhika R 21 May '01

21 May '01

Hi, Paul: Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as well as non-mobility as follows: 1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 can be considered for approval. 2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered for approval because of the following: a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined that is consistent with its charter. b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a. c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G). d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G. These are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for each application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.). This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions. Hope this will help. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Annex Gv2 Folks, The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval. I have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also have the open question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work. For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell me if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting. Thanks, Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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: Document for the Porto Seguro meeting
by OKUBO Sakae 21 May '01

21 May '01

Dear Mr. Roy, >Kindly upload the following document: > >"Reply by AT&T on Siemens contribution Comments on AT&T contributions to >Q.5/16" This has been placed at the ftp site as <http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0105_Por/Siemens_ATT_H_MMS_comment s.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 ********************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Contribution for Porto Seguro Q.5/16 (Mobility)
by Roy, Radhika R 21 May '01

21 May '01

Hi, Everyone: Just to let you know that I have also requested Mr. OKUBO to upload the following contribution: "Reply by AT&T on Siemens contribution - (Comments on AT&T contributions to Q.5/16)" Please see this document if you are interested to see comments provided in response to Mr. Ernst Horvath's contribution "TD-xxx H_MMS_comments." The highlights of the comments can be summarized as follows: 1. Every work item on mobility needs to be scoped that is consistent in the light of the overall big picture of Q.5/16. All inconsistencies need to be removed to fulfill the charter of Q.5/16. 2. All reference points need to be consistent with the overall of goal of Q.5/16 - Mobility. 3. The HLF/VLF/AuF protocol MUST be allowed to be used by all applications. No application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G) must be used to limit its use only for one application (e.g., H.323). 4. A common mobility management protocol can be used among the value-added HLF, VLF, and AuF database entities without duplicating the same function for all applications. (It defeats the fundamental basis of the ITU whose principal function is use develop the common standard to reduce the system costs.) 5. All call flows related to mobility that have been under discussion for over two years need to be consistent with the overall objectives of Q.5/16 so that all application can use the same generic principle (without limiting to a given application [e.g., H.323]). 6. The same above principle needs to be used for all other value-added services in mobile environment: Policy, QOS, Billing, Authentication, Accounting, Directory, and others. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:16 AM To: 'okubo(a)mxz.mesh.ne.jp' Subject: Document for the Porto Seguro meeting Hi, Mr. OKUBO: Kindly upload the following document: "Reply by AT&T on Siemens contribution Comments on AT&T contributions to Q.5/16" Best Regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Horvath Ernst [mailto:ernst.horvath@SIEMENS.AT] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:36 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Contribution for Porto Seguro Q.5/16 (Mobility) Dear Mr. Okubo, I uploaded contribution "TD-xxx H_MMS_comments" to the Picturetel Incoming directory. This is for discussion in Q.5/16. Kind Regards, Ernst Horvath Siemens AG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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