- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: Document registration
by OKUBO Sakae 25 Apr '04

25 Apr '04

Dear all, Let me add one thing. At 21:51 -0400 04/04/24, Paul E. Jones wrote: >I just want to remind everybody to please register any documents >they plan to submit to the Rapporteur's meeting in Beijing. Please >send me the following information for each document, if you have not >already received an AVD number from me: > >1) Document Title >2) Question(s) to which the document is directed >3) Source of the document (Editor, Company Name, etc.) > >The deadline for document registration is April 30, 2004. Even if you should have missed this registration deadline or submission deadline (May 4), please be not discouraged to submit your contributions to the meeting. We would still welcome your valuable inputs. However, for fairness of the discussion, your contributions are marked as "late registration/submission" and their considerations are up to the agreement of the meeting. Please do not misunderstand that I am loosening the deadline, I am trying to achieve the best outcome of the meeting. PS I wonder which is more guilty: on time registration but late submission vs late registration but on time submission ... -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ****************************************************************** My addresses <okubo(a)giti.or.jp>, <sokubo(a)mn.waseda.ac.jp> are not working any more. If they remain in your address book, could you please replace them with <sokubo(a)waseda.jp>?

1 0

Error in H.245v9
by Paul E. Jones 25 Apr '04

25 Apr '04

Folks, It has been a while since a "serious" error has been identified in an H.323-related spec, but one was just recently discovered in H.245v9. I want to poll the people on the H.323 Implementers List and the SG16 mailing list to see what kind of impact we might have if we change this definition. The problem relates to the "FECData" CHOICE: http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h245/h245_asn.html#MULTIMEDIA-SYSTEM-CONTRO… It is roughly defined like this: FECData ::= CHOICE { rfc2733 { ... stuff ... } } The problem is that there is no extension marker at the end of the "rfc2793" SEQUENCE, though it was intended that one be inserted. If you look at every other related definition (FECCapability and FECMode), you will see that they do contain an extension marker. We essentially have these ways to resolve this issue: 1.. Change the FECData definition to contain an extension marker 2.. Rename the "FECData" structure and references to something like "FECDataDeprecated" and add a new field called "FECData" and a new structure to go with it. This would mean no other text would have to change in H.323 or H.245 and no implementations would be impacted significantly: applications would be binary compatible, though two system implementing FEC might not open FEC protected channels correctly (one side thinking FEC is used and the other side not, for example). 3.. Create all new data structures and deprecate all current FEC data structures related to the "FECData" CHOICE We've had these kinds of problems in the past and simply corrected them via the H.323-Series Implementers Guide. However, it is always good to understand who, if anybody, will be impacted by such changes. Can you please provide me with information so that we can make an informed decision? Thanks, Paul E. Jones Rapporteur, ITU-T Q2/16 // www.packetizer.com

1 0

Document registration
by Paul E. Jones 25 Apr '04

25 Apr '04

Folks, I just want to remind everybody to please register any documents they plan to submit to the Rapporteur's meeting in Beijing. Please send me the following information for each document, if you have not already received an AVD number from me: 1) Document Title 2) Question(s) to which the document is directed 3) Source of the document (Editor, Company Name, etc.) The deadline for document registration is April 30, 2004. Thanks, Paul

1 0

Cancellation of Q.K /16 meeting
by Leo.Lehmann＠bakom.admin.ch 20 Apr '04

20 Apr '04

Dear experts, Last week on April 13 was the deadline which I set for the reception of contributions regarding Q.K (mobility) for the rapporteur meeting in Beijing. Even if I was waiting one week longer I have not received any contribution so far. To justify a meeting, we need according the ITU-T rules a significant number of contributions and member organizations which want to attend. Due to the lack of contributions I regretfully have to announce that there will be NO meeting of Q.K/16 in May in Beijing. We have a tentative plan to hold a meeting in September (co-located with Q.D,F,G,1-5) if there is enough interest and a sufficient number of contributions. In the interim, I encourage everyone to progress our work by e-mail correspondence. Best regards, Leo Lehmann Rapporteur for Q.K/16

1 0

Fwd:Rapporteur meeting of Q.1
by OKUBO Sakae 17 Apr '04

17 Apr '04

*** Forwarded to those who are interested in Q.1/16 works *** *** Apologies for this delayed forwarding due to some *** *** technical problem of the mailing list or my e-mail *** *** service provider - S Okubo *** >Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:15:04 +0200 >To: "Q.1/16" <tsg16q1(a)itu.int> >From: Patrick Luthi <patrick.luthi(a)ties.itu.int> >Subject: Rapporteur meeting of Q.1 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2004 08:15:14.0656 (UTC) >FILETIME=[9EBE2E00:01C41D41] >Sender: owner-tsg16q1(a)itu.int >Reply-To: Patrick Luthi <patrick.luthi(a)ties.itu.int> >X-Biglobe-VirusCheck: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:18:50 +0900 > >Dear experts, > >Yesterday, April 7, was the deadline that I set to make a final >decision on having or not having a Q.1 Rapporteur meeting in May in >Beijing. > >I have only 2 proposed contributions and I received several requests >to progress our work by correspondence. As you know, under the ITU-T >rules, we must have a significant number of both contributions and >member organizations wanting to attend in order to justify an >interim experts meeting. These criteria ensure the successful >progress of our work. > >Therefore, I regretfully have to announce that there will be NO >meeting of Q.1/16 in May. Our next meeting will definitely be in >November in Geneva (SG16), but we also have a tentative plan to hold >a meeting in September (co-located with Q.D,F,G,K,2-5) if there is >enough interest and a sufficient number of contributions. > >In the interim, I encourage everyone to progress our work by e-mail >correspondence. > >Best regards, > >Patrick Luthi Rapporteur for Q.1/16

1 0

Soliciting contributions for the Beijing meeting
by OKUBO Sakae 17 Apr '04

17 Apr '04

Dear Q.F,G,K,2-5/16 experts, As we need final approval of the SG16 management for the subject meeting, please register your contributions at an early occasion to Mr. Paul Jones <paulej(a)packetizer.com> even if the deadlines are set as follows: /// Registration of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 30 April 2004 /// /// Distribution of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 4 May 2004 /// Please be reminded that we need sufficient number of participants and contributions for the justification of holding Rapporteur meetings. Now I can expect sufficient number of participants in Beijing, the next is the number of contributions. Please also note the following plea from Mr. Lehmann, Rapporteur for Q.K/16 (mobility). Please respond to him promptly, by the end of Monday 19 April at the latest, when he will decide if he can hold Q.K meeting in Beijing. At 07:21 -0500 04/04/02, OKUBO Sakae wrote: >*** forwarded to those who are interested in Q.K (mobility) works *** >*** on behalf of Mr. Leo Lehmann <Leo.Lehmann(a)bakom.admin.ch> *** > >Dear experts, > >We are planning to have a Rapporteur meeting in Beijing, China >during the week of May 11-14, 2004. > >With respect to Q.K (Mobility Management) I have collected very less >essential contributions. So far I can only report about the >discussions And meetings, which I had with 3GPP regarding the >Liaison "mobility between H.323 muti media systems and GPRS/IMT2000 >networks". I have not received any further contributions or interest >from experts regarding any of the Q.K work tasks: > >- Specification of mobility handling (terminal, user) between H.323 >environments and GPRS/ IMT2000 networks >- Specification of service mobility with respect to roaming of user >profiles, mobile Multimedia collaboration applications and services >- Specification of Handover procedures where active sessions can be >maintained during location changes >- Specification of Interworking with NGN networks to support >generalised mobility handling >- Presence >or any further work task. > >Due to this fact I would like to ask you urgently to send me some >input until April 13, 2004. Q.K can only be successful if it >receives contribution from various experts. > >If I receive no further input until this date I have to consider to >inform the SG16 management and the TSB that Q.K proposes to cancel >the Q.K meeting in Beijing. Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ****************************************************************** My addresses <okubo(a)giti.or.jp>, <sokubo(a)mn.waseda.ac.jp> are not working any more. If they remain in your address book, could you please replace them with <sokubo(a)waseda.jp>?

1 0

Test - please ignore
by Paul E. Jones 17 Apr '04

17 Apr '04

1 0

Re: Request for AVD number
by Paul E. Jones 06 Apr '04

06 Apr '04

Bob, Please use AVD-2425. I assume this will be addressed to Questions 2 and 3, but if different, please let me know. Thanks, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert R. Gilman" <rrg(a)avaya.com> To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej(a)PACKETIZER.COM> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 6:04 PM Subject: Request for AVD number > Paul- > Please assign an AVD number for the Beijing meeting for: > Proposal for a Generic Capability for Nx64K Circuit Relay > over IP > Thanks. > -Bob > ---------------------------------------------------- > Bob Gilman rrg(a)avaya.com +1 303 538 3868 > >

1 0

Fwd:Re: Meeting of Q.1 in Beijing
by OKUBO Sakae 06 Apr '04

06 Apr '04

*** forwarded to those who are interested in Q.1/16 works *** >Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:45:41 +0200 >To: flaiani(a)aethra.com >From: Patrick Luthi <patrick.luthi(a)ties.itu.int> >Subject: Re: Meeting of Q.1 in Beijing >Cc: "Q.1/16" <tsg16q1(a)itu.int> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2004 19:45:56.0835 (UTC) >FILETIME=[9CF79B30:01C41B46] >Sender: owner-tsg16q1(a)itu.int >Reply-To: Patrick Luthi <patrick.luthi(a)ties.itu.int> >X-Biglobe-VirusCheck: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:54:05 +0900 > >Dear Mr. Flaiani, > >Thank you for your feedback and for your continuing interest in Q.1 >matters! I am forwarding your message to the Q.1 e-mail reflector >since it seems that your mail didn't make it before. > >Best regards, > >Patrick Luthi >Rapporteur for Q.1/16 > >At 18:28 04/02/2004 +0200, you wrote: > >>Roberto Flaiani >> >>02/04/2004 15.35 >> >> To: "Q.1/16" <tsg16q1(a)itu.int> >> cc: >> Subject: Meeting of Q.1 in Beijing >> >>Dear experts, >>I' d like to express Aethra's preference to progress Q1 work by >>correspondence until the next study group meeting. >>Given the very limited number of contributions currently on the >>table it appears hard to justify sending people with the required >>specific expertise to a physical meeting; handling the matter by >>e-mail we will not incur the risk of missing some critical piece of >>advise. >> We also share the concern that with a too limited participation >>the foundation for declaring consensus would be severely undermined. >>Best regards. >> >>Roberto Flaiani >>AETHRA

1 0

Request for Contributions to Q5/16 meeting in Beijing
by Robert R. Gilman 05 Apr '04

05 Apr '04

All- This is the first real meeting of the new Q5 NAT/Firewall Traversal question, and I'd like to solicit contributions to get the work started (but see also D-408 from the Geneva meeting). It seems especially appropriate to begin with discussions of requirements and architectures, and some examination of the existing body of work. Requirements might cover: - authentication of sources and sinks of traffic - authorization of sources/destinations to send/receive traffic. - network/realm topologies to be supported. - architectural principles - trust models - application scenarios - how to insure end-to=end privacy and integrity of application data, while permitting firewalls to authenticate the flows. - what we can require/use from existing firewalls (especially from the ubiquitous home firewalls.) - how to extend existing telephony protocols to free the firewall from knowledge of extraneous details of the protocols. I'm sure there are areas I've left out (like requirements for of any firewall control/request protocols.) At this stage, the field is wide open, so we need not limit ourselves to the above list. Another aspect of this work, I believe, is the need to involve the builders of firewalls. I don't believe we can be successful unless we can create a win/win situation for both the server and endpoint vendors and the firewall vendors. If any of you have contacts in the firewall market, please extend a personal invitation for them to join us. I'm looking forward to seeing you in Beijing. Thanks. -Bob ---------------------------------------------------- Bob Gilman rrg(a)avaya.com +1 303 538 3868

1 0