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

Uploaded documents
by OKUBO Sakae 31 Oct '02

31 Oct '02

Dear SG16 experts, At 11:07 +0100 02/10/30, Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 wrote: >The latest draft H.235V3 (as in TD-28r1 WP2/16)has been uploaded to the >Incoming directory. > >Any review, or even contributions against that documents are highly >appreciated... At 12:20 -0500 02/10/30, Paul E. Jones wrote: >I uploaded several draft documents to the Incoming directory on the >avc-site: > AnnexGv2.zip > DraftH460.3.zip > H323AnnexP.zip > H460-7-Digitmap.zip > H460-8-ReQuery.zip > h460-6plen.zip They have been moved to the following place: http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0210_Gen/ Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ******************************************************************* YRP Office Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 468 47 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 468 47 5413 239-0847 Japan GITI Headquarter 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. Tel: +81 3 5286 3831 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 169-0051 Japan ******************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Re: Draft H.235v3 uploaded
by Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

Olivier, thank you for the assistance. Please note, that H.235v3 is not yet approved and depending on further contributions, text and even ASN.1 may change. So it is perhaps a bit too early to make these parts public on the ITU-T webpage. With kind regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Rapporteur Q.G/SG16 | Martin Euchner Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Siemens AG.....................Fax : +49 89 722 62366 | ICN M SR 3 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/cs27/topics/security/ | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de/ | __________________ | Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: DUBUISSON Olivier [mailto:olivier.dubuisson@francetelecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:18 PM To: Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 Cc: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM; Julien BARBEAU Subject: Re: Draft H.235v3 uploaded Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 wrote: > > The latest draft H.235V3 (as in TD-28r1 WP2/16) has been uploaded to the > Incoming directory. FYI the ASN.1 modules of the 2000 edition of H.235 are available in the module database of the ITU-T ASN.1 Project at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/database/itu-t/h/h235/2000/index.html We will check and compile H.235V3 and upload the modules to the ITU-T website ASAP. -- Olivier DUBUISSON (ITU-T ASN.1 Project leader) france telecom R&D DTL/TAL - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France t: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - f: +33 2 96 05 39 45 - http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Draft H.235v3 uploaded
by Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

The latest draft H.235V3 (as in TD-28r1 WP2/16) has been uploaded to the Incoming directory. Any review, or even contributions against that documents are highly appreciated... With kind regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Rapporteur Q.G/SG16 | Martin Euchner Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Siemens AG.....................Fax : +49 89 722 62366 | ICN M SR 3 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/cs27/topics/security/ | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de/ | __________________ | Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

2 1

Re: Outcome of the SG16 meeting just finished
by OKUBO Sakae 30 Oct '02

30 Oct '02

Dear Mike and all, At 15:55 +0000 02/10/29, mike.nilsson(a)bt.com wrote: >I have uploaded the file H245wcmr.zip to the incoming directory. > >This is the same as the file H245wcmr5.zip thatI sent on Thursday at >4:32PM (UK time). I am assuming this was accepted by the plenary without >any changes, and is technically the same as TD-92R1(PLEN). Yes, TD-92R1(PLEN) was accepted at the beginning of SG16 session last Friday. The file has been moved to /0210_Gen directory. Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ******************************************************************* YRP Office Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 468 47 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 468 47 5413 239-0847 Japan GITI Headquarter 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. Tel: +81 3 5286 3831 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 169-0051 Japan ******************************************************************* -- $BBg5WJ] (B $B\F (B e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ************************************************************* $B") (B239-0847 $B2#?\2l;T8w$N5V (B3-4 YRP $B#1HV4[ (B312 Tel: 0468 47 5406 $BAa0pEDBg3X9q:]>pJsDL?.8&5f%;%s%?!< (BYRP $BJ,<< (B Fax: 0468 47 5413 $B") (B169-0051 $B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (B $BEl5~ET?7=I6h@>Aa0pED (B1-3-10 $B!!!! (BTel: 03 5286 3831 $BAa0pEDBg3X (B29-7 $B9f4[!!!!!!!!!!!! (B Fax: 03 5286 3832 $BAa0pEDBg3X9q:]>pJsDL?.8&5f%;%s%?!< (B ************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Results of SG 16 posted on the web
by simao.campos＠itu.int 29 Oct '02

29 Oct '02

Dear colleagues, For your information, the results of SG 16 meetings are posted on the WEB at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/results.html Thanks to the rapporteurs who put together the executive summaries! There you also find the list of (with links to) documents approved, etc. Best regards, Simao ===================================================================== Simão Ferraz de Campos Neto Counsellor, ITU-T SG 16 International Telecommunication Union Tel: +41-22-730-6805 Place des Nations Fax: +41-22-730-5853 Geneva CH1211 - Switzerland E-mail: simao.campos(a)itu.int ===================================================================== ***** Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty ***** =====================================================================

1 0

H.ldap - Directory Services Architecture
by OKUBO Sakae 29 Oct '02

29 Oct '02

Dear SG16 experts, This is a posting from Q.4 Rapporteur. We discussed the subject matter in Geneva and its outcome is contained in the WP2 meeting report: http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0210_Gen/ WP2_Report_TD65_revised.zip -- report of the discussions Q.4 report refers to the H.ladap workplan in TD-61 (WP2). This document is now available at the above place as: Directory_Services_Workplan.zip Your contributions are welcome toward the next Rapporteur meeting planned next February. Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ******************************************************************* YRP Office Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 468 47 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 468 47 5413 239-0847 Japan GITI Headquarter 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. Tel: +81 3 5286 3831 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 169-0051 Japan ******************************************************************* -- $BBg5WJ] (B $B\F (B e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ************************************************************* $B") (B239-0847 $B2#?\2l;T8w$N5V (B3-4 YRP $B#1HV4[ (B312 Tel: 0468 47 5406 $BAa0pEDBg3X9q:]>pJsDL?.8&5f%;%s%?!< (BYRP $BJ,<< (B Fax: 0468 47 5413 $B") (B169-0051 $B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (B $BEl5~ET?7=I6h@>Aa0pED (B1-3-10 $B!!!! (BTel: 03 5286 3831 $BAa0pEDBg3X (B29-7 $B9f4[!!!!!!!!!!!! (B Fax: 03 5286 3832 $BAa0pEDBg3X9q:]>pJsDL?.8&5f%;%s%?!< (B ************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Fwd: Re: Fw: SG16 meeting closure
by OKUBO Sakae 28 Oct '02

28 Oct '02

Dear Mr. Bhargava, At 14:49 -0500 02/10/28, Vivek Bhargava wrote: >I have uploaded the H.323 Implementers Guide as submitted for >approval to the incoming directory of the PictureTel site. Please >move it to the appropriate directory - Geneva_0210. It is now available at the following place: http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0210_Gen/IG_H323-October2002.zip -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ******************************************************************* YRP Office Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 468 47 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 468 47 5413 239-0847 Japan GITI Headquarter 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. Tel: +81 3 5286 3831 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 169-0051 Japan ******************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Outcome of the SG16 meeting just finished
by OKUBO Sakae 25 Oct '02

25 Oct '02

Dear SG16 experts, I have placed the WP2 reports at the following place: http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/0210_Gen/ WP2_Report_TD64_revised.zip -- list of consented and approved texts WP2_Report_TD65_revised.zip -- report of the discussions WP2_Report_TD66_plen.zip -- liaisons statements WP2_Report_TD67_plen.zip -- interim Rapporteur meeting Please note that the next Rapporteur meeting is planned during 11-14 February 2003. Its details are yet to be fixed. Using this opportunity, I would request Rapporteurs and Editors to upload the output documents at ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp ******************************************************************* YRP Office Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 468 47 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 468 47 5413 239-0847 Japan GITI Headquarter 29-7 Waseda University Bldg. Tel: +81 3 5286 3831 1-3-10 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo Fax: +81 3 5286 3832 169-0051 Japan ******************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Re: FW: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers
by Tom-PT Taylor 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

Actually, all I meant to do was to provide a neutral summary. Consultations within my organization seem to tend toward the point of view that the discrepancy is not a big deal and it would be better to preserve backward compatibility. -----Original Message----- From: Rajesh Kumar [mailto:rkumar@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:35 PM To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH] Cc: tsg11bicc(a)ties.itu.ch; tsg11q15(a)ties.itu.ch; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM; avt(a)ietf.org; mmusic(a)ietf.org; hwildfeu(a)cisco.com; mgarakan(a)cisco.com; ddeliber(a)cisco.com; Michael Frendo; Cary FitzGerald; Richard Platt; oran(a)cisco.com; mmostafa(a)cisco.com Subject: Re: FW: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers Steve and AVT/MMUSIC colleagues, Our position, which has not changed since we brought up this issue to the notice of the IETF, is similar to Tom's. We would like to see the packetization of G.726 over RTP be made identical to what is defined for AAL2 in the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. In this regard, we strongly recommend that the audio MIME subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 be aligned to the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. This alignment would include the static payload type 2. If there is a need to interoperate with the "other," non-ITU packing scheme, we recommend that new MIME types be defined for those non-ITU schemes rather than for ITU-compatible schemes, which we think should be associated with the current MIME definitions. Rajesh Kumar Cisco Systems At 08:33 AM 10/15/2002 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote: For your action if it affects you. There is a clash between the packetization of G.726 over RTP and AAL2, and a proposal to adopt the AAL2 packetization universally. Comments are requested. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Casner [mailto:casner@packetdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM To: mmusic(a)ietf.org Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32. This notice is being sent to multiple mailing lists to reach as many interested parties as possible; please reply only to avt(a)ietf.org. Background: The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889 and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status. Two drafts have been prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the IESG. In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06.txt Issue: The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the octet. This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2 transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins with the most-significant bit. Implementers of systems that operate with both transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between packings. Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an approved standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has been part of the RTP Profile drafts since 1997. Therefore, implementations of both packings are likely to exist. Furthermore, since the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other than 32K until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings for those rates. As a consequence, there is no course of action that will make everyone happy. Proposal: After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC. The MIME subtype registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to the changed packetization. In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning. Consequences: We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore objects to the change. Any such systems already in the field would produce garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant implementations, and not detect the error. This is a significant consideration, although draft specifications are not guaranteed to remain unchanged. We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as currently specified in the RTP Profile draft. This is consistent with ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail. Since the VPIM systems use MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as proposed. However, voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to reformat the data. ******************************************************************** * We are seeking statements from interested parties both for and * * against this proposal, particularly with motivations. * ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic(a)ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Re: FW: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers
by Rajesh Kumar 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

Steve and AVT/MMUSIC colleagues, Our position, which has not changed since we brought up this issue to the notice of the IETF, is similar to Tom's. We would like to see the packetization of G.726 over RTP be made identical to what is defined for AAL2 in the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. In this regard, we strongly recommend that the audio MIME subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 be aligned to the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. This alignment would include the static payload type 2. If there is a need to interoperate with the "other," non-ITU packing scheme, we recommend that new MIME types be defined for those non-ITU schemes rather than for ITU-compatible schemes, which we think should be associated with the current MIME definitions. Rajesh Kumar Cisco Systems At 08:33 AM 10/15/2002 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote: >For your action if it affects you. There is a clash between the >packetization of G.726 over RTP and AAL2, and a proposal to adopt the AAL2 >packetization universally. Comments are requested. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Casner >[<mailto:casner@packetdesign.com>mailto:casner@packetdesign.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM >To: mmusic(a)ietf.org >Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers > >The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any >implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in >particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, >and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32. > >This notice is being sent to multiple mailing lists to reach as many >interested parties as possible; please reply only to avt(a)ietf.org. > >Background: > >The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport >Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889 >and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status. Two drafts have been >prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement: > > draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt > draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt > >These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the >IESG. In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for >publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations >for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile: > > draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06.txt > >Issue: > >The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio >samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the >octet. This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2 >transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins >with the most-significant bit. Implementers of systems that operate with >both transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP >packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid >requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between >packings. > >Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an >approved standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has >been part of the RTP Profile drafts since 1997. Therefore, >implementations of both packings are likely to exist. Furthermore, since >the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other than 32K >until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings >for those rates. As a consequence, there is no course of action that will >make everyone happy. > >Proposal: > >After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed >that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with >I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC. The MIME subtype >registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in >draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the >packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to >the changed packetization. In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which >is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by >draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning. > >Consequences: > >We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the >packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore >objects to the change. Any such systems already in the field would >produce garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant >implementations, and not detect the error. This is a significant >consideration, although draft specifications are not guaranteed to remain >unchanged. > >We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice >Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as >currently specified in the RTP Profile draft. This is consistent with >ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail. Since the VPIM systems use >MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be >conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as proposed. However, >voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to >reformat the data. > >******************************************************************** >* We are seeking statements from interested parties both for and * >* against this proposal, particularly with motivations. * >******************************************************************** > >_______________________________________________ >mmusic mailing list >mmusic(a)ietf.org ><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0