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

Summary of MoIP reliable transport conference call
by James_Renkel＠3COM.COM 22 Jun '01

22 Jun '01

A conference call was held on Friday, June 15, 2001, between representatives of The CommWorks Corp. and Cisco Systems to begin discussing the requirements for a reliable transport protocol to be used with MoIP, the evaluations of existing protocols against those requirements, and the eventual recommendation of an exisitng (possibly modified) or new protocol for that purpose. On the call from The CommWorks Corp. were: - Mike Nicholas; and - Jim Renkel. >From Cisco Systems were: - Herb Wildfeuer; and - Mehryar Garakani. The call began by discussing the events that led up to the call. It was agreed that the goal of this and future follow-on calls is to develop a joint CommWorks / Cisco Systems contribution to the next meeting of TR-30.1 giving requirements for the MoIP reliable transport mechanism that could be agreed to by the two companies, and possibly an evaluation of existing protocols against these requirements that both companies could also agree to. Requirements and evaluations that could not be agreed to by the two companies would be left for presentation by each company separately. It is understood that there is a desire, once the requirements and possible evaluations have been presented to TIA TR-30.1 and agreed to by them, to have the requirements and possible evaluations presented to the IETF 51 meeting in London, UK, during the week of 8/5/2001. It is also understood that some parties plan to present a draft protocol proposal to that meeting. It was then agreed that proprietary information previously disclosed in contributions to the ITU-T and TIA groups studying MoIP could be discussed in these conference calls, but no new proprietary information should be first disclosed in these calls. It was then suggested and agreed that a small "reference model" would be useful in the discussions. The following was agreed to as the refence model, subject to future modification as may be necessary: - The reliable transport issue is bi-directional and symmetric, but is perhaps best addressed by: considering the uni-directional, asymetric case; then combining the uni-directional case with a mirror image of itself to yield the bi-directional case. - The uni-directional case can be represented by this diagram: (See attached file: Reliable transport.vsd). Discussion then turned to CommWork's contribution PCM01-020, "Transport mechanisms in MoIP operations", to the Nice, FR, rapporteur's meeting of Q11/16, in particular a row by row discussion of Table 1, "Transport mechanism characteristics", on page 8 of that contribution. It was agreed that the transport protocol must support two-way, unicast sessions. It need not support one-way only or multicast sessions. Jim Renkel will draft requriements statements reflecting this for consideration for inclusion in the joint contribution . It was agreed that the protocol should be structure preserving, but that this should be described as "packet oriented rather than stream oriented." Mehryar Garakani will draft requirements statements reflecting this for consideration for inclusion in the joint contribution . In considering the next characteristic, "Structure format discriminating", it was agreed that the issue really being considered here is that of switching / transitioning among VoIP, FoIP, and MoIP "modes" during the course of a call. While no firm agreement was reached on the requirements and mechansim for doing this, the discussion seemed to indicate that the companies were close to agreement. Each company will draft requirements for this to be exchanged via e-mail prior to and discussed at the next conference call. The next conference call is to be held Tuesday, 6/19/2001, at 10:30 A.M., CDT, 8:30 A.M., PDT.

1 0

!! Rates Are At Their Lowest! Refinance Now!
by Mark 22 Jun '01

22 Jun '01

Mortgage Rates have been slashed again! *Lower your monthly payment! *Shorten the term of your loan! *Reduce your interest rate! SAVE MONEY!!! NOW is the time to refinance... rates have NEVER been lower! We CAN assist everyone, even if you've been turned down before! Take just a minute to complete this form and a Loan Consultant will contact you at your convenience. http://www.mortgagelenderpower.com Your information is secure, confidential and you are under NO OBLIGATION for this free analysis. **************************************************************** Since you have received this message you have either responded to one of our offers in the past or your address has been registered with us. If you wish to be removed please reply to: mailto:orlando9524@yahoo.com?subject=remove ********************************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Francois Audet 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Of course... It's the sending side we need to clarify. > Oh, and on this particular case, surely receivers need to look in all > possible places, so it makes little difference where the > transmitter puts > this particular information! >

1 0

Re: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Callaghan, Robert 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Karl, I think that Francois's enhanced text will also help. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:06 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, Paul, Bob and others, Please refer to section 6.1.2 of the most recent H.323 Implementers Guide (TD-031 PLEN) of the Brazil meeting. This IG section clarified previous inconsistencies in H.323 sections 7.8.2.1, 7.8.3.1 and 7.8.4.1 compared to H.225.0. I.e. the mentioned three H.323 sections have been updated for clarification on PNP number usage. Regards, Karl Klaghofer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2001 01:27 An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Betreff: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> , tel:+1 408 495 3756

1 0

Re: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Callaghan, Robert 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Paul, I agree. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:42 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi Bob, I understand what you are saying (and I fully agree). However, H.323v4 section 7.8.2.1 on Calling party number contradicts H.225.0 with the following: When address information represents a telephone number, the relevant information may appear in the Calling Party Number IE. This IE contains the caller's number, information about the number, and presentation and screening indicators found in octet 3a. This is the recommended mode of operation for the case where a PSTN Gateway sends a Setup message on the packet network. Alternatively, calling party information may appear in the sourceAddress, presentationIndicator, and screeningIndicator fields of the Setup message. This mode of operation is required when the sourceAddress is not in any form of telephone number (i.e., sourceAddress is not type a dialedDigits or partyNumber). I'm saying that H.323v4 is misleading and should really say the following to be consistent with H.225.0v4. When address information represents a public (E.164) telphone number or a telephone number of unknown type, the relevant information may appear in the Calling Party Number IE. This IE contains the caller's number, information about the number, and presentation and screening indicators found in octet 3a. This is the recommended mode of operation for the case where a PSTN Gateway sends a Setup message on the packet network. Alternatively, calling party information may appear in the sourceAddress, presentationIndicator, and screeningIndicator fields of the Setup message. This mode of operation is required when the sourceAddress is not in any form of a public or unknown telephone number (i.e., sourceAddress is not type a dialedDigits or partyNumber.164Number); an example of such a case is a Private Number which shall be encoded in a sourceAddress.partyNumber.privateNumber. Same applies for 7.8.2.2. Right? -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:59 AM To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, See H.225.0 Section 7.2.2.4 (Called Party Number): Numbering plan identification (octet #3, bit 1-4) -*** Encoded following the values and rules of Table 4-9/Q.931. If set to "1001" (Private Numbering Plan) in a packet based network originated call, this indicates that (1)the E.164 address is not present in SETUP, and (2)the call will be routed via an alias address in the user-to-user information. This says that the identification of the Private Number Plan requires the call to be routed based on an alias address in the UUI. This also means that the Private Number Plan cannot indicate that a number conforming to a private numbering plan is present in the IE. It is possible to use the value indicating an Unknown Number Plan and place a private number in the IE. However, this is only a digit string without any defined structure. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:40 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point. The way I read it now: * H.323 says "Put a private number in the Q.931 IE"; and * H.225.0 says "Put a private number in the UUIE". Which one is it? I think you are saying H.225.0 is right (I tend to agree and so does Paul). We need to make sure everybody does (Glenn in particular), and H.323 should be clarified, because I would assume most people who read it will think they are supposed to put the IE in the Q.931 information element. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 05:00 To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 elements used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the presence of a private number is used to indicate that the address is in the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to use this value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com < mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> > -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [ mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks < mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> >, tel:+1 408 495 3756

1 0

RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Francois Audet 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Hi Bob, I understand what you are saying (and I fully agree). However, H.323v4 section 7.8.2.1 on Calling party number contradicts H.225.0 with the following: When address information represents a telephone number, the relevant information may appear in the Calling Party Number IE. This IE contains the caller's number, information about the number, and presentation and screening indicators found in octet 3a. This is the recommended mode of operation for the case where a PSTN Gateway sends a Setup message on the packet network. Alternatively, calling party information may appear in the sourceAddress, presentationIndicator, and screeningIndicator fields of the Setup message. This mode of operation is required when the sourceAddress is not in any form of telephone number (i.e., sourceAddress is not type a dialedDigits or partyNumber). I'm saying that H.323v4 is misleading and should really say the following to be consistent with H.225.0v4. When address information represents a public (E.164) telphone number or a telephone number of unknown type, the relevant information may appear in the Calling Party Number IE. This IE contains the caller's number, information about the number, and presentation and screening indicators found in octet 3a. This is the recommended mode of operation for the case where a PSTN Gateway sends a Setup message on the packet network. Alternatively, calling party information may appear in the sourceAddress, presentationIndicator, and screeningIndicator fields of the Setup message. This mode of operation is required when the sourceAddress is not in any form of a public or unknown telephone number (i.e., sourceAddress is not type a dialedDigits or partyNumber.164Number); an example of such a case is a Private Number which shall be encoded in a sourceAddress.partyNumber.privateNumber. Same applies for 7.8.2.2. Right? -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:59 AM To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, See H.225.0 Section 7.2.2.4 (Called Party Number): Numbering plan identification (octet #3, bit 1-4) -********** Encoded following the values and rules of Table 4-9/Q.931. If set to "1001" (Private Numbering Plan) in a packet based network originated call, this indicates that (1)the E.164 address is not present in SETUP, and (2)the call will be routed via an alias address in the user-to-user information. This says that the identification of the Private Number Plan requires the call to be routed based on an alias address in the UUI. This also means that the Private Number Plan cannot indicate that a number conforming to a private numbering plan is present in the IE. It is possible to use the value indicating an Unknown Number Plan and place a private number in the IE. However, this is only a digit string without any defined structure. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:40 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point. The way I read it now: * H.323 says "Put a private number in the Q.931 IE"; and * H.225.0 says "Put a private number in the UUIE". Which one is it? I think you are saying H.225.0 is right (I tend to agree and so does Paul). We need to make sure everybody does (Glenn in particular), and H.323 should be clarified, because I would assume most people who read it will think they are supposed to put the IE in the Q.931 information element. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 05:00 To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 elements used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the presence of a private number is used to indicate that the address is in the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to use this value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com < mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> > -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [ mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks < mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> >, tel:+1 408 495 3756

2 1

AW: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC ID 71 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Francois, Paul, Bob and others, Please refer to section 6.1.2 of the most recent H.323 Implementers Guide (TD-031 PLEN) of the Brazil meeting. This IG section clarified previous inconsistencies in H.323 sections 7.8.2.1, 7.8.3.1 and 7.8.4.1 compared to H.225.0. I.e. the mentioned three H.323 sections have been updated for clarification on PNP number usage. Regards, Karl Klaghofer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2001 01:27 An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Betreff: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> , tel:+1 408 495 3756

1 0

RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Callaghan, Robert 20 Jun '01

20 Jun '01

Francois, See H.225.0 Section 7.2.2.4 (Called Party Number): Numbering plan identification (octet #3, bit 1-4) -********** Encoded following the values and rules of Table 4-9/Q.931. If set to "1001" (Private Numbering Plan) in a packet based network originated call, this indicates that (1)the E.164 address is not present in SETUP, and (2)the call will be routed via an alias address in the user-to-user information. This says that the identification of the Private Number Plan requires the call to be routed based on an alias address in the UUI. This also means that the Private Number Plan cannot indicate that a number conforming to a private numbering plan is present in the IE. It is possible to use the value indicating an Unknown Number Plan and place a private number in the IE. However, this is only a digit string without any defined structure. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:40 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point. The way I read it now: * H.323 says "Put a private number in the Q.931 IE"; and * H.225.0 says "Put a private number in the UUIE". Which one is it? I think you are saying H.225.0 is right (I tend to agree and so does Paul). We need to make sure everybody does (Glenn in particular), and H.323 should be clarified, because I would assume most people who read it will think they are supposed to put the IE in the Q.931 information element. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 05:00 To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Francois, The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 elements used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the presence of a private number is used to indicate that the address is in the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to use this value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com < mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> > -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [ mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks < mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> >, tel:+1 408 495 3756

1 0

RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Francois Audet 20 Jun '01

20 Jun '01

Hi Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point. The way I read it now: * H.323 says "Put a private number in the Q.931 IE"; and * H.225.0 says "Put a private number in the UUIE". Which one is it? I think you are saying H.225.0 is right (I tend to agree and so does Paul). We need to make sure everybody does (Glenn in particular), and H.323 should be clarified, because I would assume most people who read it will think they are supposed to put the IE in the Q.931 information element. > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 05:00 > To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' > Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4 > > Francois, > > The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 > elements used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the > presence of a private number is used to indicate that the address is in > the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to use this > value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number. > > Bob > ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Enterprise Networks > Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM > To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' > Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' > Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4 > > Hi, > > I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the > encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at > work): > * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded > in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements > (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table > 18/H.225.0 Note 1. > * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for > "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not > telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 > and 7.8.2.2. > There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but > there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. > > Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? > > ---- > François AUDET, Nortel Networks > <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com>, tel:+1 408 495 3756 >

1 0

RE: Private telephone number in H.323v4
by Callaghan, Robert 20 Jun '01

20 Jun '01

Francois, The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 elements used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the presence of a private number is used to indicate that the address is in the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to use this value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number. Bob ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403 Email: <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com> Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4 Hi, I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work): * H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. * H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2. There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers. Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's? ---- François AUDET, Nortel Networks mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com> , tel:+1 408 495 3756

1 0