January 2002 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1
by BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS 11 Jan '02

11 Jan '02

Dear all, During the last rapporteur's meeting (Dublin - Ireland), it was expressed that defining H.22x (designed on the basis of H.225 annex G v2 at the current state - the backward compatibility with H.225 annex G v1 would be necessary) as a protocol used on BE--BE and BE--{Backend service entities} interfaces (other interfaces implying GKs could be considered) and stopping H.225 annex G would be a better way than defining a new protocol used on BE--{Backend service entities} interfaces and going on H.225 v2. A significant argument is : in the latter case, the BE would support two application-layer protocols that may evolve separatly in the future. This would tend to make BE functionalities harder to implement. A second one is : if the H.22x "body" includes the H.225 annex G protocol , it can be used for information exchange on BE--BE interface even in the H.323 mobility management context. To my understanding, H.22X would not contain any functional architecture description. This would be specifically described in every H.MMS.x draft, depending on the application context (H.323 specific, etc.). To give an example, the definition of generic entities would be contained in H.MMS.0. Specific entities such as GKs would be described in H.MMS.1. Then, mobility management implies a limited set of information exchanges that are independants from the application (although the type of exchange data depends on the application). These are related to the same actions at least : user registration/deregistration, location update, authentication, information update (e.g. user service profile transfer, update), location information request. So I think it is possible to define a "simple" generic protocol. Best regards, François Bougant France Telecom -----Message d'origine----- De : Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Envoyé : mercredi 9 janvier 2002 16:16 À : BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Cc : Meyer, Greg W Objet : RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 2001 Hi, Mr. Francois and All: In addition, we also had some email correspondences among the conference participants and few interested folks including Mr. Jones and Mr. Reddy. It has been opined that H.22x is NOT needed because the extensions of the existing application-specific protocol (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G) for mobility will serve the purpose. Copies of the emails are enclosed below. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy rrroy(a)att.com PS: I would highly appreciate if Mr. Greg Meyer would send the email to the SG16 reflector as you know that I can receive the mail from the reflector, but cannot send it because of problems in filtering.

1 0

H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support
by Lyons, Terry 11 Jan '02

11 Jan '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Lyons, Terry > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:06 PM > To: 'imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org'; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM > Cc: Lyons, Terry > Subject: H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support > > Maybe we should talk in terms of dot releases, > eg. v3.0 and v4.0 are the official ITU-T Recommendations > whereas v3.1 and v4.1 are the Implementers Guide changes. > > The need is to be clear about what H323 version an endpoint > conforms to or a protocol stack supports. Calling different things, > eg. H323 (11/2000) and H323 IG (6/2001), by the same name "v4" > can lead to misunderstanding. > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [mailto:plong@ipdialog.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:19 PM > Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support > > > Paul, > > No, the concensus was that the IG is NOT normative because the ITU does > not > sanction its "normativeness" in any way, but it appears that we have made > a > de facto decision to informally pretend that it is normative. I know for > sure that the H.324 IGs were NOT normative. In fact, the H.324 IG is what > its name indicates--an actual guide for implementors, not an corregendum, > which is what the H.323 IG really is (it's also an addendum, but that's > another issue altogether). I don't know about T.120 or H.320, but I'd be > willing to bet that their IGs, if they had any, were also NOT normative. > > Paul Long > ipDialog, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:27 AM > To: Lyons, Terry > Cc: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > Subject: [imtch323implementors] Re: h323 Annex E support > > > Terry, > > Arguably, the IG is not normative. However, since the first day, ITU-T > SG16 > has used the implementers guides as a normative texts. This is done, not > only with H.323, but also with T.120, H.320, H.324, etc. > > One could ignore the corrections applied to the IG, but doing so is quite > dangerous. You can't simply ignore the changes made via the IG, because > SG16 changes the ASN.1, not just add fields, and those changes will appear > in the next revision of the Recommendations. Of course, we try to limit > changes, but we usually do make a number of changes after the > Recommendation > is first approved and people start to finding problems. There are no > plans > to change the v4 syntax any further-- and I will fight any change-- but > you > can see the history of changes made for v4 on Packetizer. The last > approved > change was June 2001, yet the Recommendation was approved in November > 2000. > > It would be nice if we could first get implementations and then approve > the > Recommendation in a more solid state. Unfortunately, that's not possible > for several reasons: > 1) Companies do not want to spend engineering resources on a moving > target > 2) The standards work is usually way ahead of implementation > 3) No matter how hard we try, there's likely to be something we miss > 4) This is the way it has always been done-- tradition is hard to change > > I presently have no intent to move the IG to series of amendments. We > have > been using this approach for 5 years with good results. Changing the text > would require drafting a number of different documents and that process is > also subject to error. I'm not opposed to it, but I doubt we'll find the > volunteers to write all of the amendments: it's boring, non-rewarding > work. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)packetizer.com>; "Lyons, Terry" > <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:47 AM > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > We all recognize, don't we, that the Implementers Guide > > is not a normative ITU Recommendation. The way that the ITU > > changes things is through an amendment or subsequent edition. > > I believe there was some discussion of just this point in the past. > > > > The IG is best understood as a indication of what is coming next. > > The correct statment is that the fields are in v4, not v3. > > > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:44 PM > > To: Lyons, Terry > > Cc: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > Terry, > > > > They were added to H.323v3 via the H.323 Implementers Guide approved in > > November 2000. > > > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)packetizer.com> > > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:12 AM > > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > Hmmm ... the fields are NOT in the ITU publication H.225.0(09/99) > > > nor in the "Draft H.323 Core Document" H.225.0 Version 3 tabulated at > > > http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/ > > > which links to > > > > > > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/till_0012/9909_Gen/h225v3_decided_wcm_9 > 90 > > > 930 > > > > > > Endpoint ::= SEQUENCE > > > { > > > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, > > > aliasAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > callSignalAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress > > > OPTIONAL, > > > rasAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress > > > OPTIONAL, > > > endpointType EndpointType OPTIONAL, > > > tokens SEQUENCE OF ClearToken OPTIONAL, > > > cryptoTokens SEQUENCE OF CryptoH323Token > > > OPTIONAL, > > > priority INTEGER(0..127) OPTIONAL, > > > remoteExtensionAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > destExtraCallInfo SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > ... > > > } > > > > > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:56 AM > > > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > C. S., > > > > > > Those fields are also in v3. See the ASN.1 file here: > > > http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/h2250v3.asn > > > > > > As for how a v2 device will work, Annex E describes how the endpoint > may > > > initiate a call with Annex E and then fall back to TCP if it is > determined > > > that Annex E is not supported. Of course, this is less efficient in > terms > > > of call setup time, so using the v3/v4 fields are preferred. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <subbac(a)hss.hns.com> > > > To: "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul(a)trillium.com> > > > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:48 AM > > > Subject: [imtch323implementors] RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi paul, > > > > > > > > These "alternateTransportAddress" and "useSpecifiedTransport" fields > are > > > > present in h323V4. > > > > > > > > In Case of H323V3 how to mention. > > > > > > > > regards > > > > C. S. Rao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul(a)trillium.com> on 01/07/2002 01:49:59 PM > > > > > > > > To: Subbarao Chanduri/HSSBLR, imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > > > cc: > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rao: > > > > > > > > GK can indicate it's Annex E transport addresses in > > > > "alternateTransportAddress" > > > > field. It also indicates in "useSpecifiedTransport" to use TCP/Annex > E. > > > > > > > > -Manoj Paul > > > > Trillium Digital Systems (Intel). > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: subbac(a)hss.hns.com [mailto:subbac@hss.hns.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:37 PM > > > > To: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > > > Cc: subbac(a)hss.hns.com > > > > Subject: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > If Gatekeeper supports H323 Annex E. > > > > inresponse to Admission Request from an endpoint, > > > > through ACF, how gatekeeper informs the endpoint that it is > listening > > on > > > > two different Transport Addresses. > > > > i.e. one transport address (TA1) for Annex E messages. > > > > other transport Address (TA2) for TCP > messages. > > > > > > > > As there is only one field in ACF to indicate the destination call > > > > signalling address, how endpoint come to know > > > > about the different addresses GK is listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > C. S. Rao

2 1

Re: H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support
by Skran, Dale 10 Jan '02

10 Jan '02

Paul: I think you are incorrect on this. In SG16 implementors guides have always been treated as normative, and clearly are not implementors guides in the sense that you mention. They are formally approved by the entire SG, and become effective 'normative' after that approval. Dale Skran -----Original Message----- From: Lyons, Terry [mailto:TLyons@sonusnet.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:08 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support > -----Original Message----- > From: Lyons, Terry > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:06 PM > To: 'imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org'; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM > Cc: Lyons, Terry > Subject: H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support > > Maybe we should talk in terms of dot releases, > eg. v3.0 and v4.0 are the official ITU-T Recommendations > whereas v3.1 and v4.1 are the Implementers Guide changes. > > The need is to be clear about what H323 version an endpoint > conforms to or a protocol stack supports. Calling different things, > eg. H323 (11/2000) and H323 IG (6/2001), by the same name "v4" > can lead to misunderstanding. > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Long [mailto:plong@ipdialog.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:19 PM > Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support > > > Paul, > > No, the concensus was that the IG is NOT normative because the ITU does > not > sanction its "normativeness" in any way, but it appears that we have made > a > de facto decision to informally pretend that it is normative. I know for > sure that the H.324 IGs were NOT normative. In fact, the H.324 IG is what > its name indicates--an actual guide for implementors, not an corregendum, > which is what the H.323 IG really is (it's also an addendum, but that's > another issue altogether). I don't know about T.120 or H.320, but I'd be > willing to bet that their IGs, if they had any, were also NOT normative. > > Paul Long > ipDialog, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:27 AM > To: Lyons, Terry > Cc: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > Subject: [imtch323implementors] Re: h323 Annex E support > > > Terry, > > Arguably, the IG is not normative. However, since the first day, ITU-T > SG16 > has used the implementers guides as a normative texts. This is done, not > only with H.323, but also with T.120, H.320, H.324, etc. > > One could ignore the corrections applied to the IG, but doing so is quite > dangerous. You can't simply ignore the changes made via the IG, because > SG16 changes the ASN.1, not just add fields, and those changes will appear > in the next revision of the Recommendations. Of course, we try to limit > changes, but we usually do make a number of changes after the > Recommendation > is first approved and people start to finding problems. There are no > plans > to change the v4 syntax any further-- and I will fight any change-- but > you > can see the history of changes made for v4 on Packetizer. The last > approved > change was June 2001, yet the Recommendation was approved in November > 2000. > > It would be nice if we could first get implementations and then approve > the > Recommendation in a more solid state. Unfortunately, that's not possible > for several reasons: > 1) Companies do not want to spend engineering resources on a moving > target > 2) The standards work is usually way ahead of implementation > 3) No matter how hard we try, there's likely to be something we miss > 4) This is the way it has always been done-- tradition is hard to change > > I presently have no intent to move the IG to series of amendments. We > have > been using this approach for 5 years with good results. Changing the text > would require drafting a number of different documents and that process is > also subject to error. I'm not opposed to it, but I doubt we'll find the > volunteers to write all of the amendments: it's boring, non-rewarding > work. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)packetizer.com>; "Lyons, Terry" > <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:47 AM > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > We all recognize, don't we, that the Implementers Guide > > is not a normative ITU Recommendation. The way that the ITU > > changes things is through an amendment or subsequent edition. > > I believe there was some discussion of just this point in the past. > > > > The IG is best understood as a indication of what is coming next. > > The correct statment is that the fields are in v4, not v3. > > > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:44 PM > > To: Lyons, Terry > > Cc: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > Terry, > > > > They were added to H.323v3 via the H.323 Implementers Guide approved in > > November 2000. > > > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons(a)sonusnet.com> > > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)packetizer.com> > > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:12 AM > > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > Hmmm ... the fields are NOT in the ITU publication H.225.0(09/99) > > > nor in the "Draft H.323 Core Document" H.225.0 Version 3 tabulated at > > > http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/ > > > which links to > > > > > > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/till_0012/9909_Gen/h225v3_decided_wcm_9 > 90 > > > 930 > > > > > > Endpoint ::= SEQUENCE > > > { > > > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, > > > aliasAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > callSignalAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress > > > OPTIONAL, > > > rasAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress > > > OPTIONAL, > > > endpointType EndpointType OPTIONAL, > > > tokens SEQUENCE OF ClearToken OPTIONAL, > > > cryptoTokens SEQUENCE OF CryptoH323Token > > > OPTIONAL, > > > priority INTEGER(0..127) OPTIONAL, > > > remoteExtensionAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > destExtraCallInfo SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL, > > > ... > > > } > > > > > > - TLyons(a)sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:56 AM > > > Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > C. S., > > > > > > Those fields are also in v3. See the ASN.1 file here: > > > http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/h2250v3.asn > > > > > > As for how a v2 device will work, Annex E describes how the endpoint > may > > > initiate a call with Annex E and then fall back to TCP if it is > determined > > > that Annex E is not supported. Of course, this is less efficient in > terms > > > of call setup time, so using the v3/v4 fields are preferred. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <subbac(a)hss.hns.com> > > > To: "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul(a)trillium.com> > > > Cc: <imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org> > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:48 AM > > > Subject: [imtch323implementors] RE: h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi paul, > > > > > > > > These "alternateTransportAddress" and "useSpecifiedTransport" fields > are > > > > present in h323V4. > > > > > > > > In Case of H323V3 how to mention. > > > > > > > > regards > > > > C. S. Rao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul(a)trillium.com> on 01/07/2002 01:49:59 PM > > > > > > > > To: Subbarao Chanduri/HSSBLR, imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > > > cc: > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rao: > > > > > > > > GK can indicate it's Annex E transport addresses in > > > > "alternateTransportAddress" > > > > field. It also indicates in "useSpecifiedTransport" to use TCP/Annex > E. > > > > > > > > -Manoj Paul > > > > Trillium Digital Systems (Intel). > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: subbac(a)hss.hns.com [mailto:subbac@hss.hns.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:37 PM > > > > To: imtch323implementors(a)mail.imtc.org > > > > Cc: subbac(a)hss.hns.com > > > > Subject: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > If Gatekeeper supports H323 Annex E. > > > > inresponse to Admission Request from an endpoint, > > > > through ACF, how gatekeeper informs the endpoint that it is > listening > > on > > > > two different Transport Addresses. > > > > i.e. one transport address (TA1) for Annex E messages. > > > > other transport Address (TA2) for TCP > messages. > > > > > > > > As there is only one field in ACF to indicate the destination call > > > > signalling address, how endpoint come to know > > > > about the different addresses GK is listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > C. S. Rao

3 2

Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1
by Meyer, Greg W 10 Jan '02

10 Jan '02

Forwarded per Mr. Roy's request... Greg Meyer -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:16 AM To: BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Cc: Meyer, Greg W Subject: RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 2001 Hi, Mr. Francois and All: In addition, we also had some email correspondences among the conference participants and few interested folks including Mr. Jones and Mr. Reddy. It has been opined that H.22x is NOT needed because the extensions of the existing application-specific protocol (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G) for mobility will serve the purpose. Copies of the emails are enclosed below. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy rrroy(a)att.com PS: I would highly appreciate if Mr. Greg Meyer would send the email to the SG16 reflector as you know that I can receive the mail from the reflector, but cannot send it because of problems in filtering. -----Original Message----- From: BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS [mailto:francois.bougant@RD.FRANCETELECOM.COM] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:25 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 2001 Report of Q.5/SG16 (Mobility) conference call on December 18th, 2001 (prepared by Francois Bougant) Participants: Messrs. Gleason (Cisco), Euchner (Siemens), Horvath (Siemens), Reddy (Intel), Roy (AT&T), Bougant (FT). Available documents: New drafts of H.235 Annex G, H.MMS.0 and H.MMS.1; temporary documents TD-EH-01, TD-EH-02, TD-EH-03, TD-EH-04 and TD-FB-02. Results: Most of the time was spent on TD-EH-04 (H.22x draft) 1) the messages defined to ensure security in signalling exchanges have been discussed. It has been proposed to remove the set of definitions related to Access Request/Confirm/Reject messages from H.22x because security requirements on interaces between heterogeneous systems must be identified. Another discussion was about to add optional fields in Service Request/Confirm/reject messages, because such these messages would be used to start a relationship between entities from heterogeneous systems and with different signalling capabilities. Mr. Orvath proposed to make a separate work on these issues. 2) The next discussion was about the version number of ASN.1 coding of H.22x. " The version number is the only real issue. This is an object identifier which contains "itu-t recommendation h 2250 ..." at the moment. Two solutions seem possible: a) Use application specific version numbers. In Annex G V2 the version number will remain "itu-t recommendation h 2250 ...", in H.MMS.x it will use another object-ID root. b) Use the current object identifier (i.e. just increment the version number) for all applications even if they have nothing to do with Annex G." (extracted from TD-EH-04) Contributions are needed to solve this issue. 3) The next discussion was about to extend the current structures (MessageBody choice and message sequences) in order to support additional data and message formats according to H.MMS.0 requirements. It has been notified that the current H.22x design allows these extensions. The next call conference will be on January 25, 2002. Best regards, Francois Bougant France Telecom

1 0

Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR
by Even, Roni 10 Jan '02

10 Jan '02

Frank, I do not object to have some reports that are needed by the GK. I would object to copy all RTCP info to the IRR. The RTCP is a direct connection between encoder and decoder. This is used and will be used for supporting media specific indications that will help the communication like for error resilience. Another problem is that decomposed systems like gateways will have the RTCP in the MG part while the GK communication will be done by the MGC who does not have all the RTCP information. that is why I suggested that instead of stating that the need is for the RTCP info to list the information that will be useful for the GK Regards Roni -----Original Message----- From: frank.derks(a)PHILIPS.COM [mailto:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:48 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR Roni, the idea is that the GK may have its reasons for wanting this sort of information. Depending on why the GK wants this information, it may be classified as being for call control, diagnosis, accounting, etc. An example of usage for call control would be the re-routing of the call when it is experiencing insufficient quality. I agree that there may be other ways of obtaining this sort of information (E.g. through the RTP MIB: RFC2959) and that we may have take other "call control" protocols (like SIP, MGCP and H.248/Megaco) into consideration, to avoid coming up with a H.323 specific solution. Furthermore, the solution(s) may be dependent on the purpose of the information, although I would not opt for a variety of solutions that do more or less the same. The reason, why I initially, proposed the "H.323 solution", is because it is relatively easy to add this to H.323 and because it may serve a multitude of purposes. The fact that this topic is being discussed within the IETF is good, but we must be aware that this is something in which any of us can freely participate. In a sense we all "are" the IETF if we decide to participate. If there are any ideas withing this community, then we should not hesitate to coomunicate this on the AVT mailing list. Regards, Frank Paul, The need for the report is not clear to me. Usually RTCP is used for codec/encoder communication and not call control. What is needed by the GK that is in the RTCP today. If the application is monitoring then maybe SNMP has it already. Roni -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:41 AM To: Even ,Roni; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR Roni, Yes, you're right. However, it seems reasonable that H.323 systems might report this information to the GK for decision making purposes. We could use SNMP, but we'd need agreement from both sides that that is the way to go. I would guess that the reporting to the GK is intended for some decision processes... would you really prefer to have poll via SNMP instead? I'd suspect you're not going to use traps. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Even ,Roni" <roni.even(a)polycom.co.il> To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)PACKETIZER.COM>; <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:33 AM Subject: RE: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > Paul, > Having a solution for H.323 may not solve the problem. RTP & RTCP are used > also in other protocols like SIP. At the last IETF meeting (IETF-52) the > topic was discussed in the AVT WG. Maybe we can see what will happen there. > I would like to point out that SNMP can be used to get part of the > information. > Roni Even > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:14 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > Paul, > > I suppose this is probably in need of clarification, but the assumption was > that if the call contained an audio session, the audio element would be > included. Likewise for video, etc. Unfortunately, there are a few fields > in H.225.0 that are labeled as "OPTIONAL" in the ASN.1, so implementers > assume that semantically they're optional, but that's not the case. We > don't want to change the syntax (since we don't want to mandate the > inclusion of a field when the call doesn't have a session of that type), so > I suppose it would be nice to see a proposal for clarification of this > issue. > > One other thought about the RTCP stats is that we report them in the DRQ > rather than the IRR. One problem with IRRs is that if they are sent too > frequently, an extremely busy system can get bogged down processing those > messages. I imagine that you'd want to set the IRR timer somewhere outside > the length of an average call. Doing so, though, would mean you never get > stats for the average call. So perhaps DRQ alone (or in addition to) the > IRR is the right approach. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Long" <plong(a)IPDIALOG.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:42 AM > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > Paul, > > > > Please note though that an EP is not required to include any media info in > > perCallInfo, i.e., audio, video, and data. I imagine that this was an > > oversight, but we ought to explicitly require v5+ EPs to report all > > currently active media sessions, including RTP. > > > > Paul Long > > ipDialog, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > > [mailto:ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:07 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > > > I completely support your idea. > > > > pj > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <frank.derks(a)PHILIPS.COM> > > To: <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:42 AM > > Subject: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > RTP's specification mandates that the RTP ports, for a given > > > source/destination, are "co-located" with the RTCP ports. This > > > means the the report information about the RTP streams flow > > > between the communicating endpoints. Although this mode of > > > operation is intentional, it does make it difficult for 3rd > > > parties to monitor the statistics as perceived by the endpoints. > > > This can be particularly useful for network management where > > > one would like to be able to monitor whether the network > > > provides adequate quality. > > > > > > On way to access the RTCP information would be to route all the > > > RTCP traffic through some entity, but this also means that the > > > RTP will have to follow the same path through the network. And > > > this is not desirable. > > > > > > For H.323 there would be the option to include the report packets > > > in the "audio" element in the perCallInfo element in the IRR > > > message. This would allow for a Gatekeeper to get a hold of these > > > "vital" statistics. > > > > > > Any views? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Frank > > >

1 0

Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 2001
by BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Report of Q.5/SG16 (Mobility) conference call on December 18th, 2001 (prepared by Francois Bougant) Participants: Messrs. Gleason (Cisco), Euchner (Siemens), Horvath (Siemens), Reddy (Intel), Roy (AT&T), Bougant (FT). Available documents: New drafts of H.235 Annex G, H.MMS.0 and H.MMS.1; temporary documents TD-EH-01, TD-EH-02, TD-EH-03, TD-EH-04 and TD-FB-02. Results: Most of the time was spent on TD-EH-04 (H.22x draft) 1) the messages defined to ensure security in signalling exchanges have been discussed. It has been proposed to remove the set of definitions related to Access Request/Confirm/Reject messages from H.22x because security requirements on interaces between heterogeneous systems must be identified. Another discussion was about to add optional fields in Service Request/Confirm/reject messages, because such these messages would be used to start a relationship between entities from heterogeneous systems and with different signalling capabilities. Mr. Orvath proposed to make a separate work on these issues. 2) The next discussion was about the version number of ASN.1 coding of H.22x. " The version number is the only real issue. This is an object identifier which contains "itu-t recommendation h 2250 ..." at the moment. Two solutions seem possible: a) Use application specific version numbers. In Annex G V2 the version number will remain "itu-t recommendation h 2250 ...", in H.MMS.x it will use another object-ID root. b) Use the current object identifier (i.e. just increment the version number) for all applications even if they have nothing to do with Annex G." (extracted from TD-EH-04) Contributions are needed to solve this issue. 3) The next discussion was about to extend the current structures (MessageBody choice and message sequences) in order to support additional data and message formats according to H.MMS.0 requirements. It has been notified that the current H.22x design allows these extensions. The next call conference will be on January 25, 2002. Best regards, Francois Bougant France Telecom

1 0

Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR
by frank.derks＠PHILIPS.COM 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

Roni, the idea is that the GK may have its reasons for wanting this sort of information. Depending on why the GK wants this information, it may be classified as being for call control, diagnosis, accounting, etc. An example of usage for call control would be the re-routing of the call when it is experiencing insufficient quality. I agree that there may be other ways of obtaining this sort of information (E.g. through the RTP MIB: RFC2959) and that we may have take other "call control" protocols (like SIP, MGCP and H.248/Megaco) into consideration, to avoid coming up with a H.323 specific solution. Furthermore, the solution(s) may be dependent on the purpose of the information, although I would not opt for a variety of solutions that do more or less the same. The reason, why I initially, proposed the "H.323 solution", is because it is relatively easy to add this to H.323 and because it may serve a multitude of purposes. The fact that this topic is being discussed within the IETF is good, but we must be aware that this is something in which any of us can freely participate. In a sense we all "are" the IETF if we decide to participate. If there are any ideas withing this community, then we should not hesitate to coomunicate this on the AVT mailing list. Regards, Frank Paul, The need for the report is not clear to me. Usually RTCP is used for codec/encoder communication and not call control. What is needed by the GK that is in the RTCP today. If the application is monitoring then maybe SNMP has it already. Roni -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:41 AM To: Even ,Roni; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR Roni, Yes, you're right. However, it seems reasonable that H.323 systems might report this information to the GK for decision making purposes. We could use SNMP, but we'd need agreement from both sides that that is the way to go. I would guess that the reporting to the GK is intended for some decision processes... would you really prefer to have poll via SNMP instead? I'd suspect you're not going to use traps. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Even ,Roni" <roni.even(a)polycom.co.il> To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej(a)PACKETIZER.COM>; <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:33 AM Subject: RE: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > Paul, > Having a solution for H.323 may not solve the problem. RTP & RTCP are used > also in other protocols like SIP. At the last IETF meeting (IETF-52) the > topic was discussed in the AVT WG. Maybe we can see what will happen there. > I would like to point out that SNMP can be used to get part of the > information. > Roni Even > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:14 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > Paul, > > I suppose this is probably in need of clarification, but the assumption was > that if the call contained an audio session, the audio element would be > included. Likewise for video, etc. Unfortunately, there are a few fields > in H.225.0 that are labeled as "OPTIONAL" in the ASN.1, so implementers > assume that semantically they're optional, but that's not the case. We > don't want to change the syntax (since we don't want to mandate the > inclusion of a field when the call doesn't have a session of that type), so > I suppose it would be nice to see a proposal for clarification of this > issue. > > One other thought about the RTCP stats is that we report them in the DRQ > rather than the IRR. One problem with IRRs is that if they are sent too > frequently, an extremely busy system can get bogged down processing those > messages. I imagine that you'd want to set the IRR timer somewhere outside > the length of an average call. Doing so, though, would mean you never get > stats for the average call. So perhaps DRQ alone (or in addition to) the > IRR is the right approach. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Long" <plong(a)IPDIALOG.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:42 AM > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > Paul, > > > > Please note though that an EP is not required to include any media info in > > perCallInfo, i.e., audio, video, and data. I imagine that this was an > > oversight, but we ought to explicitly require v5+ EPs to report all > > currently active media sessions, including RTP. > > > > Paul Long > > ipDialog, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > > [mailto:ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:07 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > > > I completely support your idea. > > > > pj > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <frank.derks(a)PHILIPS.COM> > > To: <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:42 AM > > Subject: Including RTCP report packets in IRR > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > RTP's specification mandates that the RTP ports, for a given > > > source/destination, are "co-located" with the RTCP ports. This > > > means the the report information about the RTP streams flow > > > between the communicating endpoints. Although this mode of > > > operation is intentional, it does make it difficult for 3rd > > > parties to monitor the statistics as perceived by the endpoints. > > > This can be particularly useful for network management where > > > one would like to be able to monitor whether the network > > > provides adequate quality. > > > > > > On way to access the RTCP information would be to route all the > > > RTCP traffic through some entity, but this also means that the > > > RTP will have to follow the same path through the network. And > > > this is not desirable. > > > > > > For H.323 there would be the option to include the report packets > > > in the "audio" element in the perCallInfo element in the IRR > > > message. This would allow for a Gatekeeper to get a hold of these > > > "vital" statistics. > > > > > > Any views? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Frank > > >

1 0

Facilty Message, reason StartH245
by Peter Price 04 Jan '02

04 Jan '02

All, I need a little help with interpretation... I believe that the receipt of a Facility message with reason "StartH245" means that the receiving endpoint SHALL open an H245 channel to the sender at the supplied transport address. However, I can't find where it specifies the SHALL part of this statement in the standards. The only references I can find to startH245 are (H323/8.2.3) related to Fast Connect and tunnelling (H.245/7.4.1) which is actually about when the reason code is NOT StartH245 So the questions are: 1) Is it appropriate to use Facility (startH245) outside Fast Connect or Tunnelling (for instance the called endpoint trying to force the equivalent of Early H245) 2) Is it really mandatory for the receiving endpoint to open the H245 channel - if so where does it stipulate this in the standards. Thanks Pete Price Vegastream Ltd

2 1