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

Re: Use of RTCP statistics for estimating QoS of VoIP
by frank.derks＠PHILIPS.COM 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

Alan, I have just had a look at the final version sof H.460.9 and I could not find any text that explains the real value of the QoS information that can be transported (not including future extensions of course). This is a real pity, because I do agree that many implementors will not be well informed enough to determine the value of the information from the standard RTCP packets. Regards, Frank Alan Clark <alan(a)TELCHEMY.COM> Sent by: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> 2002-11-08 18:29 Please respond to alan To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM cc: (bcc: Frank Derks/HVS/BE/PHILIPS) Subject: Re: Use of RTCP statistics for estimating QoS of VoIP Classification: Frank I did suggest (via Mike Buckley) that the following be added to H.460.9 however don't know if it was actually included. " It should be noted that RTCP reports were not originally intended to provide accurate QoS metrics but for informative exchanges between endpoints to support possible dynamic configuration. According to RFC1889 (a) received packet count may include duplicate packets and hence it is possible to report negative packet loss (b) reported mean packet-to-packet delay variation (jitter) is averaged over the last 16 received packets and hence provides information only on the 160-480mS period immediately preceding transmission of the RTCP report." I do agree with you that potential implementors may well feel uncomfortable that the Recommendation in its initial form contains information that has little or no value. I am even more concerned that less well informed implementors may accept what is in the Recommendation as being "sufficient" and hence attempt to manage VoIP services with metrics that can be quite misleading. Regards Alan -----Original Message----- From: frank.derks(a)philips.com [mailto:frank.derks@philips.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:46 AM To: alan(a)TELCHEMY.COM Cc: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Use of RTCP statistics for estimating QoS of VoIP Alan, I certainly agree that, if the main body of the Recommendation covers metrics that are of little practical use of the recipient of these metrics, the Recommendation can be misleading. Only with the proper background information will the reader be able to distinguish the real value in the particular metrics. I feel somewhat uncomfortable when the main body of a Recommendation provides me with something that is of little value, but which can be extended to include more useful information. A possible way "out of this", is to include some text that clearly explains the situation and that reflects the concerns that were raised and agreed upon. Regards, Frank Bob I appreciate that a mechanism was provided to permit extension of H.460.9 and that it was agreed to incorporate the RTCP Extensions, once standardized. This does make a lot of sense and would definitely accomodate the new metrics when available. The reason behind my email yesterday was that we often find that equipment manufacturers, service providers and network managers don't understand this area as well as those who are actively conducting R&D in this area, and hence in this case they may assume that RFC1889 metrics are "good" for monitoring VoIP QoS since they are contained in H.460.9. This is already a continual re-education process with the metrics in RFC1889 .. their inclusion in H.460.9 will make the task even more difficult. People within the industry have great respect for the ITU, understand that there is an extensive process of technical discussion and review that is part of the process of developing ITU standards, and hence place considerable faith in the technical content of ITU Recommendations. In this specific case H.460.9 contains metrics which are known to be inadequate for the purpose of measuring VoIP QoS and hence there is a risk of deployment of an incorrect or inappropriate element due to its incorporation in an ITU Recommendation. I am not trying to be "difficult" but tried to input essentially the same viewpoints prior to the SG16 meeting and am genuinely concerned over the outcome. Regards Alan Clark -----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Robert R. Gilman Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:13 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Use of RTCP statistics for estimating QoS of VoIP Alan- Mike Buckley brought up the same questions you raise at the last SG16 meeting. I don't believe anyone objects to your arguments, and, in fact, the resulting work, H.460.9, was modified to permit extension to other measures and the exclusion of the current, IETF-standardized, measures. Once the IETF draft you reference becomes a standard, it will be easy to refer to the resulting RFC and to incorporate the resulting measures as appropriate. In the meantime, you have the option to use the existing measures and, through the definition of non-standard elements, any other measures you wish to implement on a permanent or trial basis. It seemed better to set the framework now, so that implementation and use can begin, and to do so in such a way that future improvements may be incorporated quickly and easily. Does this make sense? -Bob ---------------------------------------------------- Bob Gilman rrg(a)avaya.com +1 303 538 3868 Alan Clark wrote: > > Paul > > I am responding to the recent SG16 email that encouraged direct input from > those not participating directly in the work of the Study Group. > > One particular recent issue relates to the recent addition of QoS reporting > based on RTCP statistics. We have spent the last three years analyzing and > modeling the effects of IP network impairments on VoIP and would like to > share our experience on this issue. > > RTCP statistics were intended to provide a "rough" real time feedback > between endpoints to give some sense of network quality and facilitate > potential adaptation. IP network impairments are transient in nature and > the "averaged" metrics that RFC1889 produces are as a result very > misleading. The addition of QoS reporting based on RFC1889 metrics is, in > our opinion, a backward step as it infers that these statistics are useful > for VoIP quality estimation whereas they are in fact almost meaningless. > > (i) Packet Loss - counts > RFC1889 counts of loss are not compensated for duplicate packets, hence it > is possible to have incorrect and even negative (!!) loss counts. > > (ii) Packet Loss- distribution > Voice quality is very sensitive to the distribution of packet loss - if 2% > loss occurs but the losses are spread out evenly then with PLC quality would > be affected only marginally, if 1% loss occurs but losses occur during short > intervals (typically the case) then quality can be affected quite > significantly. > RFC1889 does not consider the distribution of lost packets and hence packet > loss numbers can only grossly be equated to call quality (i.e. loss rate of > 20% is bad but you couldn't say for sure if 2% was bad or not) > > (iii) Jitter - metric > The average packet-to-packet delay variation used in RFC1889 does not > properly reflect the effects of congestion related delay changes. For > example > (a) if congesion occurs and a queue starts to fill then delay increases > however the packet-to-packet delay change may be small however the increase > in delay may cause the jitter buffer to resynchronize at some stage. > (b) LAN congestion can cause short term spikes in delay, and hence may lead > to packet discards. The average packet-to-packet delay variation will not > reflect this due to the smoothing effect of the averaging algorithm. > > (iv) Jitter - reporting interval > As jitter is reported as a running average with a scaling factor of 16, an > RTCP report only describes the jitter level during the 200mS or so prior to > the report being generated and says nothing about the jitter level during > the much larger period between reports. > > We have spoken to, and worked with, people in the industry that have been > looking at this issue in detail and have found general agreement with the > comments above. Unfortunately, there are also a fair number of people that > blindly accept that something must be "ok" because it is "in a standard" .. > this obviously raised the concern that incorporating these metrics into the > H series of standards further proliferates this viewpoint. > > Within the IETF AVT group this issue was discussed almost a year ago, and > the group agreed to develop a set of metrics that were more accurate and > appropriate for VoIP QoS reporting purposes. These include measures of > packet loss, packets discarded due to jitter, length and density of bursts > and gaps (of combined loss and discard), delay, call quality metrics... > This is contained in the following:- > > draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-report-extns-01.txt > > I would very much appreciate understanding the technical rationale behind > incorporating RFC1889 based metrics into VoIP QoS reports, given the > comments above. > > Regards > > Alan Clark > Telchemy > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

6 10

Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003
by Even, Roni 24 Dec '02

24 Dec '02

Paul, The least we will need is to have Stephan's draft in some agreed upon stage like after WG last call before we put in H.225. We had some interop problem in H.263 due to different payload. BTW it will be dynamic PT Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 4:06 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > Roni, > > It is possible to specify the use of H.264 without an RFC. > Even today, > there is not RFC for G.723.1... though it has been in the > works for several > years. All we would need is an agreed-upon payload format and to ask > Henning to assign a PT value or decide on the use of a > dynamic PT value. We > can insert the payload format into H.225.0 if we want and use > that until the > RFC is available. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Even, Roni" <roni.even(a)POLYCOM.CO.IL> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM> > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:35 AM > Subject: Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > Hi, > > I want to pint out that in order to use H.264 in H.323 and > H.320 we need a > > final version of H.264 and an RFC describing the RTPformat. > So having > H.264 > > in May will not make it usable in a standrad mode unless we > can progress > on > > all fronts. > > Roni Even > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Sullivan > > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Sent: 18/12/2002 03:17 > > Subject: Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > Istvan et al, > > > > The current plan is for JVT to meet in Pattaya with MPEG. > WP3 will then > > either be in Pattaya on or > > about the 15th of March or soon thereafter elsewhere. > > > > The previous plan was drafted under the expectation that we > would need > > to deliver FDIS text in > > mid-February as an interim editing output on the MPEG side. > > We now plan to allow more time for editing and final technical > > double-check, so FDIS text is not needed > > that soon. Although technical freeze was declared last > week, FDIS is > > not going to happen until March now > > so that we can have a more mature document. This lessens > the schedule > > pressure on the MPEG side > > somewhat. We can benefit from that extra time by doing the same > > thing on the ITU side and aligning text delivery and final technical > > double-check in both organizations. > > This will still enable ITU-T decision no later than May, > which is what > > it probably would have been anyway > > regardless of whether we did consent somwhat earlier. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -Gary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 > [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] > > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:46 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > > > So, how then are the plans concretely? > > > > On March 11-15, 2003 there is an MPEG Meeting in Pattaya. > So, H.264 goes > > to FDIS. > > But: > > > > 1) When and where is the JVT Meeting? > > 2) When and where is the WP3 Meeting? > > > > Kind regards, > > Istvan > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@microsoft.com] > > Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 12:05 > > An: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Betreff: RE: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > > > Yes, we are planning for WP3 consent for H.264/AVC sometime between > > March 15 and March 30. > > This will let us consent a better draft and coordinate > better with the > > ISO/IEC approval process. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -Gary S. > > _____ > > > > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 > > [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] > > Sent: Mon 12/16/2002 2:32 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > > > Dear Mr. Okubo, > > > > Thanks. > > For mid February also a one day WP3 meeting in Geneva was planned to > > make > > "consent" for H.264. Has that also gone away? > > > > Regards, > > Istvan Sebestyen > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: OKUBO Sakae [ mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP > > <mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP> ] > > Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 05:12 > > An: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM > > Betreff: Fwd: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 > > > > > > Dear Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 experts, > > > > The conclusion last week in Awajishima, Japan, was that > Q.6/WP3 would > > not meet as a whole next February. So we will meet in San > Jose during > > 11-14 February 2003 according to 2/ below. Mr. Jones will issue the > > meeting notice very soon. > > > > At 16:23 +0900 02/12/07, OKUBO Sakae wrote: > > >[...] > > >Rapporteurs have been seeking the best place to hold this meeting. > > >This is to report the progress. > > > > > >1/ As default, we will meet in Geneva to handle video > related topics > > >with Q.6 experts who will meet there for WP3 consent of H.264. > > > > > >2/ In case Q.6 and WP3 should not meet at that time > depending on the > > >interim achievements, Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 will meet in the US, > San Jose or > > >Raleigh, thanks to the offer of Cisco. > > > > > >3/ Q.6 is now working in Japan and will have a definite answer next > > >Friday if they meet in Geneva during the mentioned week next > > >February. So our final decision will be made at that time. Please > > >stay tuned on this mailinglist. > > > > > >4/ For this Rapporteur meeting, Paul Jones acts as meeting > organizer, > > >and myself as document manager. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > > listserv(a)lists.intel.com > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > > listserv(a)lists.intel.com > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > > listserv(a)lists.intel.com > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > > listserv(a)lists.intel.com > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv(a)lists.intel.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

2 1

Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003
by Even, Roni 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

Hi, I want to pint out that in order to use H.264 in H.323 and H.320 we need a final version of H.264 and an RFC describing the RTPformat. So having H.264 in May will not make it usable in a standrad mode unless we can progress on all fronts. Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: Gary Sullivan To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Sent: 18/12/2002 03:17 Subject: Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Istvan et al, The current plan is for JVT to meet in Pattaya with MPEG. WP3 will then either be in Pattaya on or about the 15th of March or soon thereafter elsewhere. The previous plan was drafted under the expectation that we would need to deliver FDIS text in mid-February as an interim editing output on the MPEG side. We now plan to allow more time for editing and final technical double-check, so FDIS text is not needed that soon. Although technical freeze was declared last week, FDIS is not going to happen until March now so that we can have a more mature document. This lessens the schedule pressure on the MPEG side somewhat. We can benefit from that extra time by doing the same thing on the ITU side and aligning text delivery and final technical double-check in both organizations. This will still enable ITU-T decision no later than May, which is what it probably would have been anyway regardless of whether we did consent somwhat earlier. Best Regards, -Gary -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:46 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 So, how then are the plans concretely? On March 11-15, 2003 there is an MPEG Meeting in Pattaya. So, H.264 goes to FDIS. But: 1) When and where is the JVT Meeting? 2) When and where is the WP3 Meeting? Kind regards, Istvan -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 12:05 An: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: RE: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Yes, we are planning for WP3 consent for H.264/AVC sometime between March 15 and March 30. This will let us consent a better draft and coordinate better with the ISO/IEC approval process. Best Regards, -Gary S. _____ From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Mon 12/16/2002 2:32 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Mr. Okubo, Thanks. For mid February also a one day WP3 meeting in Geneva was planned to make "consent" for H.264. Has that also gone away? Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: OKUBO Sakae [ mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP <mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP> ] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 05:12 An: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: Fwd: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 experts, The conclusion last week in Awajishima, Japan, was that Q.6/WP3 would not meet as a whole next February. So we will meet in San Jose during 11-14 February 2003 according to 2/ below. Mr. Jones will issue the meeting notice very soon. At 16:23 +0900 02/12/07, OKUBO Sakae wrote: >[...] >Rapporteurs have been seeking the best place to hold this meeting. >This is to report the progress. > >1/ As default, we will meet in Geneva to handle video related topics >with Q.6 experts who will meet there for WP3 consent of H.264. > >2/ In case Q.6 and WP3 should not meet at that time depending on the >interim achievements, Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 will meet in the US, San Jose or >Raleigh, thanks to the offer of Cisco. > >3/ Q.6 is now working in Japan and will have a definite answer next >Friday if they meet in Geneva during the mentioned week next >February. So our final decision will be made at that time. Please >stay tuned on this mailinglist. > >4/ For this Rapporteur meeting, Paul Jones acts as meeting organizer, >and myself as document manager. -- 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

2 1

FS-VDSL Focus Group
by John Magill 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

(My apologies if you receive this more than once.) Colleagues, As you probably know a new Full Service -VDSL Focus Group has been established under SG16. (see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/fs-vdsl/index.html for more information) To give SG16 delegates visibility of the draft Recommendations being prepared by the Focus Group, a new FTP site and email reflector have been established. These are open to both ITU-T members and Focus Group members. Full details are available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/fs-vdsl/edh-info.html including details of how to join the email reflector and access the FTP site. On the FTP site you will find folders for each of the proposed Recommendations. These will be used to post the latest drafts as the work progresses. Current drafts resulting from the recent Focus Group meeting in Paris are available now. Also on the FTP site is a folder containing a number of informative White Papers on FS-VDSL. Those interested in the work of the Focus Group are encouraged to join the email reflector and review the draft Recommendations. Comments on the drafts are requested as soon as possible. There will be an editing meeting for the draft system architecture Recommendation in Turin, Italy, during 14-17 January 2003. We have SG16 permission to have a Rapporteur meeting at this time if sufficient interest exists, and there will also be a planned Rapporteur meeting in Toronto, 4-6 March 2003, which will also cover the OAM&P Recommendation. In addition it is currently proposed to convert the Operator Requirements Specification (Part 1) into an ITU-T Supplement to accompany the Recommendations. The latest published version of Part 1 is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/fs-vdsl/fgts.html Please contact me if you have any comments or questions on any aspect of the work. Other relevant contacts are: Associate Rapporteur for architecture Recommendation (Q.B) - Stephane Py <stephane.py(a)rd.francetelecom.com> Associate Rapporteur for OAM&P Recommendation (Q.C) - Peter Adams <p.f.adams(a)btopenworld.com> Best regards John Magill Vice-Chairman SG16 & FS-VDSL Focus Group --------------------------------------------------- John Magill Consultant Probecom Ltd. Tel: +44 1666 510105 Fax: +44 8700 527645 Email: johnmagill(a)probecom.co.uk --------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Job Opportunity for H.323/SIP Protocol Engineer
by Voip 4U 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

Location: Based in Sunnyvale, CA Responsibilities: Participate in system architecture conception and design. Software implementation, unit testing and documentation. Major development work will be H.323, SIP & MGCP based. Interworking with other industry products. General Requirements: Bachelor�s Degree required in Computer Science. At least 5 years of directly relevant experience developing telecommunication products. Ability to document completed designs with detailed engineering software specifications. A solid understanding of software engineering principles relative to multithreaded operating systems, Socket programming, process scheduling, IPC and concurrency in redundant distributed systems, Knowledge of debuggers, system utilities, scripting language, data structures. Experience with writing software for embedded system. Ability to document completed designs with detailed engineering software specifications. Qualifications: Knowledge of Firewalls, Qos, NAT is essential In addition to those mentioned above: Direct experience with telephony and VoIP protocols: H.323, SIP, MGCP, MEGACO/H.248, RTP. Experience in designing H.323 protocol stack is a big plus. (experience of openh323 is also good) UNIX application development Languages: C, C++ OS: Solaris, Linux --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

1 0

Re: [h323forum] Re: Codec negotiation question
by Denise Shull 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Trying to not 'plug' any company or technology in this arena, however, I am doing a consulting project for a company that schedules the packets - versus prioritizing them. They are in beta mode but their tests reveal a very effective method for delivering video with greatly reduced latency and jitter. It would be useful to be able to have input from this group both on the idea and on their technology specifically. Regards, Denise Denise K. Shull SHULL ADVISORS, LLC Strategic Application of Meeting Technologies 646-498-6403 www.videooverip.biz -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:04 PM To: Paul Long; h323forum(a)mail.imtc.org; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: [h323forum] Re: Codec negotiation question Paul, Do you mean RFC 2508? In any case, Robert's point is indeed valid. This is where having a specialize GW that multiplexes the RTP streams for delivery over the long-haul is something practical. Perhaps we could take that up as a work item with SG16? It would be reasonable to specify how such an Gateway might function in order to trunk a large number of active calls over long distance. Anyone interested in such a work item? Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" <plong(a)packetizer.com> To: <h323forum(a)mail.imtc.org> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:49 PM Subject: [h323forum] Re: Codec negotiation question > Robert, > > Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. I wonder what happened to > cRTP. Anybody know? That would sure help. > > Paul > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:53:34 -0500 > > "Paul Long" <plong(a)packetizer.com> wrote: > > > > > I know lots of folks would like a means of expressing exact > > > packetization, but isn't the solution trivial? All you need is a > small > > > FIFO and a few lines of code to re-packetize according to any > internal > > > requirements. Just write incoming frames regardless of size, e.g., > > > 30fpp, to the FIFO, and read whatever size frames you want, e.g., > 80fpp > > > from the FIFO (only read if there are at least X fpp in the FIFO). > > > > DSP hardware is not the only reason for wanting to have the remote > > endpoint send larger packets. We have many clients on long haul > internet > > links (300ms+ ping times), often with a slow tail circuit (ISDN or > even > > modem) and you REALLY want the other end to send more than one G.723.1 > > frame per packet to reduce the significant overhead that there is in > the > > RTP. > > > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate but true that there is no way of expressing a > > > minimum > > > > acceptable number of frames per packet. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Paul Long wrote: > > > > > Davide, > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in the standard that requires the acceptance > of an > > > OLC > > > > > or precludes terminating the call for any reason whatsoever so > both > > > EPs > > > > > are technically compliant. > > > > > > > > > > Packetization in TCS and OLC expresses the _maximum_ frames per > > > packet, > > > > > but several vendors don't understand this simple concept and > > > continue > > > > > to produce products that expect an exact packetization. There > is a > > > good > > > > > chance that that is why EP A is rejecting the OLC. It wants the > > > channel > > > > > opened at exactly 80fpp, although there is no way to express > this > > > in > > > > > H.323. IMO, if this is the reason, that product is broken. > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >>I have a question about a codec negotiation. > > > > >>During H.245 negotiation, endpoint A (master) exports g711A-law > > > with > > > > > > > > > > packetization 80, endpoint B (slave) exports g711A-law with > > > > > packetization 30. After that, endpoint A opens a channel with > > > > > packetization = 20 ms. Endpoint B acknoledges the OLC and tries > to > > > open > > > > > a channel with packetization = 30 ms. > > > > > > > > > >>Here Endpoint A rejects the OLC and the call is disengaged. > > > > >> > > > > >>Does anybody can tell me which endpoint dosn't behave according > to > > > > > > > > > > the H323 standard? > > > > > > > > > >>Thank you in advance. > > > > >> > > > > >>Davide > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: cwp@isdn- > comms.co.uk > > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager > > > > ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down > Road > > > > Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND > > > > Phone: +44 1344 899 007 > > > > Fax: +44 1344 899 001 > > > > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: equival(a)equival.com.au > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > ---------- > > Robert Jongbloed Equivalence Pty. Ltd. > > Architect Open Phone Abstraction Library (OPAL) & OpenH323 > > Open Source Telecommunication Protocol Libraries > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Quicknet's revolutionary MicroTelco Services offers > > LOW WORLDWIDE RATES ANY TIME OF THE DAY with > > No monthly fees! No monthly minimums! No connection fees! > > US rates as low as 2.9 cents a minute! To see more rates, > > visit www.microtelco.com > > > > > > ****LIVE VIDEO CONFERENCE NOW AVAILABLE***** > > CUseeMe v5.0 software is an affordable easy-to-use software > > application providing live visual communication between friends, > > family and colleagues worldwide. To learn more, visit, > > www.cuseemeworld.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: paulej(a)packetizer.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > --- You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: deniseshull(a)sbcglobal.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-h323forum-30418E(a)mail.imtc.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

4 6

AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Gary, thanks for the clarification. Few remaining questions: 1) What does the "technical freeze" actually mean? No new technical contributions? Or only corrections on technologies, if any, if e.g. requirements are not fulfilled or editorial, typographical changes? 2) What is the purpose of a consent meeting in March? Will there be a "last call" immediately afterwards? Is the Mai SG Meeting planned to process the expected comments received? Or, the last call would go out only after the May meeting? In that case why the March Meeting? Kind regards, Istvan -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2002 02:17 An: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: RE: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Istvan et al, The current plan is for JVT to meet in Pattaya with MPEG. WP3 will then either be in Pattaya on or about the 15th of March or soon thereafter elsewhere. The previous plan was drafted under the expectation that we would need to deliver FDIS text in mid-February as an interim editing output on the MPEG side. We now plan to allow more time for editing and final technical double-check, so FDIS text is not needed that soon. Although technical freeze was declared last week, FDIS is not going to happen until March now so that we can have a more mature document. This lessens the schedule pressure on the MPEG side somewhat. We can benefit from that extra time by doing the same thing on the ITU side and aligning text delivery and final technical double-check in both organizations. This will still enable ITU-T decision no later than May, which is what it probably would have been anyway regardless of whether we did consent somwhat earlier. Best Regards, -Gary -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:46 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 So, how then are the plans concretely? On March 11-15, 2003 there is an MPEG Meeting in Pattaya. So, H.264 goes to FDIS. But: 1) When and where is the JVT Meeting? 2) When and where is the WP3 Meeting? Kind regards, Istvan -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 12:05 An: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: RE: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Yes, we are planning for WP3 consent for H.264/AVC sometime between March 15 and March 30. This will let us consent a better draft and coordinate better with the ISO/IEC approval process. Best Regards, -Gary S. _____ From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Mon 12/16/2002 2:32 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Mr. Okubo, Thanks. For mid February also a one day WP3 meeting in Geneva was planned to make "consent" for H.264. Has that also gone away? Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: OKUBO Sakae [ mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP <mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP> ] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 05:12 An: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: Fwd: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 experts, The conclusion last week in Awajishima, Japan, was that Q.6/WP3 would not meet as a whole next February. So we will meet in San Jose during 11-14 February 2003 according to 2/ below. Mr. Jones will issue the meeting notice very soon. At 16:23 +0900 02/12/07, OKUBO Sakae wrote: >[...] >Rapporteurs have been seeking the best place to hold this meeting. >This is to report the progress. > >1/ As default, we will meet in Geneva to handle video related topics >with Q.6 experts who will meet there for WP3 consent of H.264. > >2/ In case Q.6 and WP3 should not meet at that time depending on the >interim achievements, Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 will meet in the US, San Jose or >Raleigh, thanks to the offer of Cisco. > >3/ Q.6 is now working in Japan and will have a definite answer next >Friday if they meet in Geneva during the mentioned week next >February. So our final decision will be made at that time. Please >stay tuned on this mailinglist. > >4/ For this Rapporteur meeting, Paul Jones acts as meeting organizer, >and myself as document manager. -- 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Re: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003
by Gary Sullivan 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Istvan et al, The current plan is for JVT to meet in Pattaya with MPEG. WP3 will then either be in Pattaya on or about the 15th of March or soon thereafter elsewhere. The previous plan was drafted under the expectation that we would need to deliver FDIS text in mid-February as an interim editing output on the MPEG side. We now plan to allow more time for editing and final technical double-check, so FDIS text is not needed that soon. Although technical freeze was declared last week, FDIS is not going to happen until March now so that we can have a more mature document. This lessens the schedule pressure on the MPEG side somewhat. We can benefit from that extra time by doing the same thing on the ITU side and aligning text delivery and final technical double-check in both organizations. This will still enable ITU-T decision no later than May, which is what it probably would have been anyway regardless of whether we did consent somwhat earlier. Best Regards, -Gary -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:46 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 So, how then are the plans concretely? On March 11-15, 2003 there is an MPEG Meeting in Pattaya. So, H.264 goes to FDIS. But: 1) When and where is the JVT Meeting? 2) When and where is the WP3 Meeting? Kind regards, Istvan -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 12:05 An: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3; ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: RE: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Yes, we are planning for WP3 consent for H.264/AVC sometime between March 15 and March 30. This will let us consent a better draft and coordinate better with the ISO/IEC approval process. Best Regards, -Gary S. _____ From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M SR 3 [mailto:istvan.sebestyen@SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Mon 12/16/2002 2:32 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Mr. Okubo, Thanks. For mid February also a one day WP3 meeting in Geneva was planned to make "consent" for H.264. Has that also gone away? Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: OKUBO Sakae [mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2002 05:12 An: ITU-SG16(a)echo.jf.INTEL.COM Betreff: Fwd: Rapporteur meeting in February 2003 Dear Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 experts, The conclusion last week in Awajishima, Japan, was that Q.6/WP3 would not meet as a whole next February. So we will meet in San Jose during 11-14 February 2003 according to 2/ below. Mr. Jones will issue the meeting notice very soon. At 16:23 +0900 02/12/07, OKUBO Sakae wrote: >[...] >Rapporteurs have been seeking the best place to hold this meeting. >This is to report the progress. > >1/ As default, we will meet in Geneva to handle video related topics >with Q.6 experts who will meet there for WP3 consent of H.264. > >2/ In case Q.6 and WP3 should not meet at that time depending on the >interim achievements, Q.D,F,G,1-5/16 will meet in the US, San Jose or >Raleigh, thanks to the offer of Cisco. > >3/ Q.6 is now working in Japan and will have a definite answer next >Friday if they meet in Geneva during the mentioned week next >February. So our final decision will be made at that time. Please >stay tuned on this mailinglist. > >4/ For this Rapporteur meeting, Paul Jones acts as meeting organizer, >and myself as document manager. -- 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

Q. D/16 Meeting In San Jose
by Tom-PT Taylor 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Q. D/16 will meet in San Jose only if there are contributions to the question. If people intend to submit such contributions, I would appreciate notice by January 20. I will make the decision on whether to hold the meeting on that date. Please see TD 42 (WP 2/16) from the meeting in Geneva, 5-15 February 2002, for suggestions on contribution topics. This document is available in the TIES directory at http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg16/sg16/td/Geneva-5-02-2002/wp2/ Tom Taylor taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0

ITU-T Q.D,F,G,2-5 Rapporteur's Meeting Announcement
by Paul E. Jones 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

To Experts of ITU-T SG16 Questions D, F, G, 2, 3, 4 and 5/16 Cc Mr. P-A. Probst, Chairman of SG16 <probst-pa(a)bluewin.ch> Mr. S. Campos-Neto, ITU TSB <simao.campos(a)itu.int> De T Taylor Rapporteur for Q.D/16 <taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com> M Buckley Rapporteur for Q.F/16 <mikebuckley(a)44comms.com> M Euchner Rapporteur for Q.G/16 <Martin.Euchner(a)siemens.com> P Jones Rapporteur for Q.2/16 <paulej(a)packetizer.com> T Anderson Rapporteur for Q.3/16 <tlatla(a)verizon.net> S Okubo Rapporteur for Q.4/16 <okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp> E Horvath Rapporteur for Q.5/16 <ernst.horvath(a)siemens.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Notice of Joint Rapporteur Meeting in San Jose, California Date: 16 December 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear experts of Questions D, F, G, 2-5/16, The subject meeting of ITU-T SG16 experts will be held in San Jose, California at Cisco Systems. Details of the meeting are contained herein. 1. Date ^^^^^^^ 11 (Tuesday) - 14 (Friday) February 2003 Meeting will start at 9:00 AM on the first day Closing around 18:00 on the final day 2. Venue ^^^^^^^^ Cisco Systems, Inc. Gateway Conference Center Building J 255 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 94134 USA Tel: +1 408 526 4000 3. Topics (tentative) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1) Review of the relevant group activities 2) Q.D/16 Interoperability of Multimedia Systems and Services - Develop roadmap for future activity on interoperability - Progress work on vocabulary - Cooperate in the development of recommendations on systems 3) Q.F/16 Quality of Service and End-to-end Performance in Multimedia Systems - Progress work for: * H.qos.arch * Review Annex N H.323 * Review and issue draft H.mmclass * Review and issue draft H.priority 4) Q.G/16 Security of Multimedia Systems and Services - Progress work on * H.235 Version 3 * H.235 Annex G (SRTP Usage) * H.SETS (Security for Emergency Telecommunications) * H.324 security enhancements & H.235 Annex C - Maintenance of * Revised H.233/H.234 (Circuit-switched A/V security) * H.235 Annex F (Hybrid Security Profile) * H.530 (Mobility Security) - Other items of interest with security impact 5) Q.2/16 Multimedia over packet networks using H.323 systems - Progress work on: * H.323 Annex N (QoS) * H.323 Annex O (I-net protocols) * Annex I/H.323 * H.225.0v5 * H.323v5 * H.460.tppr * Annex A/H.460.1 - Discuss plans for future work 6) Q.3/16 Infrastructure and interoperability for Multimedia over packet networks - Progress work on * H.246AnxCv2 * H.248AnxF * H.248.19 * H.341v2 - Begin work on * MoIP for H.248 * other new work. 7) Q.4/16 Video and data conferencing using Internet-supported services - Produce requirement capture for H.ldap - Produce draft H.ldap - Produce issue list for H.ldap - Describe other service scenarios - Elaborate workplan 8) Q.5/16 Mobility for Multimedia Systems and Services - Progress work for: * H.500 * H.550 * other mobility related topics 9) Interaction with other groups 10) Future work plan 4. Documents ^^^^^^^^^^^^ /// Registration of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 31 January 2003 /// /// Distribution of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 4 February 2003 /// /// Use the ftp site (or e-mail reflector) for distribution /// 1) When you are going to submit a document, please notify Sakae Okubo <okubo(a)giti.waseda.ac.jp>, document manager of this meeting, as soon as possible, by 23:59 UTC, Friday 31 January 2003 at the latest. Document number AVD-nnnn will be allocated. Early indication of your submission plan is welcome and encouraged. Note - Prefix "AVD" comes from Audio, Video and Data. 2) You are advised to include a header as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector Document AVD-{nnnn}| | Study Group 16 {Version m if relevant}| | Q.D, F, G, 2-5/16 Rapporteur Meeting {Date}| | San Jose, 11-14 February 2003 | | | | SOURCE*: { } | | TITLE : { } | | PURPOSE: {Proposal, Discussion, Information, Report, etc.} | | | | _________________________ | | | | | | | | *Contact: Name, e-mail | ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3) All the contributors are requested to distribute their documents as early as possible, at least 7 calendar days in advance of the meeting (23:59 UTC, Tuesday 4 February 2003 or before) by posting them at either of the following: - Uploading via FTP The FTP area for SG16 documents is presently being moved. The new location will be advised on the e-mail reflector as soon as the transition of ftp site has been completed. - Intel e-mail reflector e-mail address: itu-sg16(a)echo.jf.intel.com Please avoid the use of reflector when your document is voluminous. 4) Input documents can be retrieved from /0302_San directory of the ftp site once Mr. Okubo has an opportunity to put them into place. 5) The document distribution / presentation at the meeting will be all electronic. Participants must bring along a laptop, Ethernet card, and Ethernet cable in order to access the documents. 5. Logistic information ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The meeting will be hosted by Cisco Systems on the San Jose campus. San Jose Cisco campus map: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/687/Directory/campus.html Directions to Building J from the San Jose Airport: o When exiting the San Jose Airport, make a left onto Route 87 (Guadalupe Parkway). o Go north on Route 87 to N. First Street. o Turn left onto N. First Street. o Take N. First Street approximately 2.4 miles to Tasman Drive. o Take a right on E. Tasman and cross over First Street. o Building J is in a group of buildings on the right just before you get to Vista Montana Ave. o Approximate distance from the San Jose Airport is 4 miles Directions to Building J from the San Francisco Airport: o Take Highway 101 south towards San Jose. o Take the 237 East exit towards Alviso/Milpitas. o Take the Zanker Exit. o Take a right on Zanker. o Take a left on Tasman. o Building J is in a group of buildings on the right just before you get to Vista Montana Ave. o Approximate distance from the San Jose Airport is 35 miles Transportation to and from the meeting facilities is the responsibility of the attendee. However, several area hotels offer a shuttle service to and from the San Jose airport, as well as to and from the Cisco campus. (Please see section 7 below for a partial listing.) Attendees will have access to the Internet via an Ethernet connection. Attendees are requested to bring an Ethernet cable at least 7 meters in length. 802.11b wireless access will not be available. Power outlets will be provided at each seat for use with laptop computers. The power outlets will be standard US connections at 110 volts. Attendees are required to bring any adapters, as necessary. 6. Registration ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To register your meeting attendance, please send e-mail to Paul E. Jones <paulej(a)packetizer.com>, providing the family name, given name, company name, and e-mail address of person(s) attending. 7. Hotel Room Reservation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There are no hotels specifically reserved for this meeting, as hotel space in San Jose is usually plentiful. Even so, it is a good idea to reserve your room in advance. For those who wish to have some suggestions, here are a few of the nearby hotels: Beverly Heritage Hotel 1820 Barber Lane Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.beverlyheritage.com/ Tel: +1 408 943 9080 Crown Plaza 777 Bellew Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.sixcontinentshotels.com/h/d/CP/hd/sfomp Tel: +1 408 321 9500 Hilton Garden Inn 30 Ranch Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.hiltongardeninn.com/en/gi/hotels/index.jhtml?ctyhocn=SJCMHGI Tel: +1 408 719 1313 Sheraton San Jose 1801 Barber Lane Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.starwood.com/sheraton/search/hotel_detail.html?propertyID=670 Tel: +1 408 943 0600 All of the above hotels offer shuttle service to and from the San Jose airport, as well as shuttle service to and from the Cisco campus. Please check with the hotel for specific details and/or to make arrangements for transportation. We are looking forward to meeting with you in San Jose. Sincerely yours, Tom TAYLOR Mike BUCKLEY Martin EUCHNER Paul JONES (meeting manager of this meeting) Terry ANDERSON Sakae OKUBO (document manager of this meeting) Ernst HORVATH ---------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)lists.intel.com

1 0