- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Nit on new callcapacity field
by Dave Walker 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Can anyone explain the mysterious maximum value used for all of the call capacity fields added to H.225.0 version 4? They are all defined as INTEGER (1..429467295). At first glance, it appeared to be 4G (which is BIG!), but after a while, it revealed itself to be something totally different (429M, still a fair sized H323 endpoint). I'd like this to be fixed. (I find it an unreasonable limitation on my Annex L endpoint ;) Dave W.

2 1

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Hi, Everyone: We are all aware that many works related to H.323-SIP Interworking works are being proposed including IMTC and TIPHON. I am also in touch with Ayse Dilber of AT&T. These organizations are primarily chartered for interoperability agreements, testing, etc. and do NOT create standards per se. Like TIPHON, they are willing to send a liaison to the ITU-T SG16 recommending the requirements. In the same fashion, TIPHON and IMTC are also working for H.323 mobility works. That does not mean that the SG16 should not do the H.323 mobility work. The H.323 and SIP standards are created by the ITU-T and IETF, respectively and these standards organizations are the right bodies to create the standards that are recognized internationally. I am again quoting from decision taken in the last SG16 meeting TD-74 (Plen), Section 3.8.5.1, p-48: "... Invite contributions on how to approach the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a framework. ..." We are proceeding to work along this line in the SG16. Best Regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 [SMTP:Istvan.Sebestyen@ICN.SIEMENS.DE] > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:27 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > Importance: High > > Dear Colleagues, > I was present at the SG16 meeting, and have also read now carefully the > meeting report. There is really at this point in time in the ITU no new > "workitem" or "question" open for this work. Certainly this might change > if > based on contributions SG16 decides so. > > You might, however, be interested that in the IMTC a lot of very similar > work is already being done. > Have a view of the program of the aHIT! Working Group (chaired by Ayse > Dilber (adilber(a)att.com)) of AT&T), described below. > I am sure Ayse will be more than happy to see more active co-workers > pushing > the work of aHIT! ahead. The aHIT! program was approved within the IMTC in > November 1999, and now it is running full speed. > > Kind regards, > Istvan sebestyen > > > > > > aHIT! AG's Objectives: > > - Identify VoIP and Multimedia Applications (i.e., VoIP, FoIP, > Conferencing, > Instant Messaging, etc.) which will enable service providers to implement > end-to-end services; > - Identify Interworking Scenarios (i.e., between H.323 and > SIP/H.248-MEGACO/cable/etc.) to achieve interworking between different > protocols to support multi-vendor and multi-service provider environments; > - Develop technical interoperability documents per application and per > scenario to guide service providers and vendors to implement seamless, > secure, global VoIP and Multimedia Applications; > - Encourage, define and participate in global VoIP and Multimedia > applications trials between member service providers and vendors > - Provide a forum for open technical exchange; > - Support, promote and participate in IMTC/ETSI testing events. > > aHIT! AG Work Plan: > > 1) Define technical lower layer communications capabilities and protocols > for each application. > 2) Work on interworking between H.323 and SIP/NCS/H.248-MEGACO. > 3) Introduce the value-added functionalities and enhanced services. > 4) Develop and publish technical interoperability documents per > application/scenario starting from 2Q00. > > aHIT! AG will address the following issues for each application,: > > Performance/QoS > Reliability > Naming/Numbering/Addressing > Settlements/Billing > Fax Support > OAM&P Support > Number Portability > Interworking Issues(i.e.,H.323/SIP/MEGACO/NCS and CCS/PSTN) > Enhanced Services (i.e., roaming) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Istvan Sebestyen > Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, > Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich > Tel:+49-89-722-47230 > Fax:+49-89-722-47713 > E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de > E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; > Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 > Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---------------- > > > ---------- > > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC[SMTP:rrroy@ATT.COM] > > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > > 16 > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 1:58 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has also been the > case > > for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting. > > > > More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly indicated that we > > should > > bring contributions to get the work started. The interworking between > > H.323 > > and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed jointly with > Q.13 > > and Q.14). > > > > There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP > > Interworking. A large number of people throughout the world (starting > from > > the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me. > > > > The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide > "INTEROPERABILITY." > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > +1 732 420 1580 > > rrroy(a)att.com > > > >

1 0

Mobility ad hoc conf.call
by Guram Paul-LPG019 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Hi ad hoc mob group >From the replies received as to the availability of members for the next telephone conference call, the next conference call will be held on Thursday 23rd March. Senthil please arrange for the conf. bridge and send details, time to be 8 a.m. PST (to give members in Europe and Israel, not too late an evening). Thanks. As Radhika suggested it is better if one person controlled the upload of the contributions, so please send me your contributions, I will give them a MD number, and put them on the server ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/ <ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/> as kindly arranged by Mr Okubo. Regards Paul

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Tom-PT Taylor 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Oops. You're right. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Gilman [SMTP:rrg@lucent.com] > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 10:15 AM > To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904:EXCH] > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Tom - > I think the SIP RFC is 2543. 2705 is MGCP. > -Bob > ---------------------------------------------------- > Bob Gilman rrg(a)bell-labs.com (303)538-3868 > > > > Tom-PT Taylor wrote: > > > > I should make one thing clear, as it does not seem to be outside the > IETF. > > There is only one official version of SIP: that presented in RFC 2705. > BUT, > ...

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Dear Colleagues, I was present at the SG16 meeting, and have also read now carefully the meeting report. There is really at this point in time in the ITU no new "workitem" or "question" open for this work. Certainly this might change if based on contributions SG16 decides so. You might, however, be interested that in the IMTC a lot of very similar work is already being done. Have a view of the program of the aHIT! Working Group (chaired by Ayse Dilber (adilber(a)att.com)) of AT&T), described below. I am sure Ayse will be more than happy to see more active co-workers pushing the work of aHIT! ahead. The aHIT! program was approved within the IMTC in November 1999, and now it is running full speed. Kind regards, Istvan sebestyen aHIT! AG's Objectives: - Identify VoIP and Multimedia Applications (i.e., VoIP, FoIP, Conferencing, Instant Messaging, etc.) which will enable service providers to implement end-to-end services; - Identify Interworking Scenarios (i.e., between H.323 and SIP/H.248-MEGACO/cable/etc.) to achieve interworking between different protocols to support multi-vendor and multi-service provider environments; - Develop technical interoperability documents per application and per scenario to guide service providers and vendors to implement seamless, secure, global VoIP and Multimedia Applications; - Encourage, define and participate in global VoIP and Multimedia applications trials between member service providers and vendors - Provide a forum for open technical exchange; - Support, promote and participate in IMTC/ETSI testing events. aHIT! AG Work Plan: 1) Define technical lower layer communications capabilities and protocols for each application. 2) Work on interworking between H.323 and SIP/NCS/H.248-MEGACO. 3) Introduce the value-added functionalities and enhanced services. 4) Develop and publish technical interoperability documents per application/scenario starting from 2Q00. aHIT! AG will address the following issues for each application,: Performance/QoS Reliability Naming/Numbering/Addressing Settlements/Billing Fax Support OAM&P Support Number Portability Interworking Issues(i.e.,H.323/SIP/MEGACO/NCS and CCS/PSTN) Enhanced Services (i.e., roaming) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > ---------- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC[SMTP:rrroy@ATT.COM] > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 1:58 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Hi, Everyone: > > I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has also been the case > for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting. > > More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly indicated that we > should > bring contributions to get the work started. The interworking between > H.323 > and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed jointly with Q.13 > and Q.14). > > There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP > Interworking. A large number of people throughout the world (starting from > the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me. > > The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide "INTEROPERABILITY." > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > +1 732 420 1580 > rrroy(a)att.com > >

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 25 Feb '00

25 Feb '00

Many thanks for all the information on this from all sides. I think Tom Taylor's summary captures best where we are, and what the solution should be, and I agree with him. If there is a need (which might very well be...) to clean up any "mess" that might have resulted from the SIP vs. H.323 standardization effort, that should be done by more neutral third parties that have more distance to the detailed H.323 and SIP standardization and who concentrate on interoperability such as ETSI TIPHON or IMTC (where development engineers try to figure out in their implementation what was really meant in the standards, and might try to make H.323 an SIP systems peacefully cooperate). So, this is my contribution to the "Q.13 and Q.14 invitation on how to approach > the work". > Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > ---------- > From: Tom-PT Taylor[SMTP:taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > I should make one thing clear, as it does not seem to be outside the IETF. > There is only one official version of SIP: that presented in RFC 2705. > BUT, just as SG 16 works on successive versions of H.323, the IETF is > working on the next version of SIP. It is the discussion of what should > be in the core specification next time around versus what should be in > various extension documents which may be causing the confusion in people's > minds. BTW, it seems to me that extensions are roughly the IETF > equivalent of ITU-T options. > > That said, I agree with Bob that all that came out of the discussion was a > feeling that the terms of any such work need to be hammered out, plus a > willingness to consider further contributions so long as they don't get > too detailed. > > Looks to me like this work is going to be done in TIPHON and the > interoperability consortia. Neither the IETF nor the ITU-T really seems > to want it at this point. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:10 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Orit, > > This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: > > ======= Start > > 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] > This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: > · Concerns about joint development with IETF > · Which version of SIP would be used? > · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - need to look > > at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and see how output > compares > with phrasing of work in these questions > · Activities should include comparing call models, media signaling > · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should not be done in > > SG16 > · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - this would > split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 have moved away from > joint sessions) > · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use only the > IETF > equivalent of a Recommendation) > · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP > Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions on how to approach > > the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled > architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a framework. > See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. > > ======= End > > This is the statement in the Q.13 report: > > ======= Start > > D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP > Networks > > This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, > that > would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several > > versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as > SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new > question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was > also > mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining > the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One > suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies > such > as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that > the > target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by > various > other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should > be > studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are > solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and > Q14. > > ======= End > > I cannot see in these statements any thing representing an agreement > as to > the work to be performed. Your attached terms of reference were not > approved at the working party, which is required, nor in the Question > meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do not see how to move > the > work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. Therefore you paper > on > terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to the Osaka meeting > for discussion. > > I do know that the proposal for a new question was rejected at the > question > level, and not brought forward to the working party or study group level. > > Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work with H.225.0 > Annex G > to TRIP. Other items are to follow. > > For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do not feel that > the ITU > should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not accept any IETF person > > as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done jointly. No one > wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is the process to be > used? > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Information and Communication Networks > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [ mailto:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > Hello Sebestyen! > There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning, but I > am > sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional > related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to the > > attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in > this > paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible > directions. > We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an understanding > > of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for Osaka > meeting. > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit(a)radvision.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; 'Orit > > Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > >Orit, > >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in > TD-74 > >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > > > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > > > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP > interworking. > > > > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > > > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that > > >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several > >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as > > >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new > >question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was > also > >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining > > >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One > >suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies > such > >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that > the > >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by > various > >other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should > > be > >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are > >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and > >Q14." > > > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? > > > >Regards, > >Istvan > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen > >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, > >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich > >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 > >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 > >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de > >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; > >Siemens Intranet: http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 > >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > - > >---------------- > > > >> ---------- > >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > >> Reply To: Orit Levin > >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM > >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > >> > >> Hi! > >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as > >> described in the initial paper. > >> > >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new > specifications > >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to > >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If > found > >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or > > >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP > scenarios), > >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are > >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. > >> > >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our > > >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this > > >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name > :-) > >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the > > >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all > > >> its meaning). > >> > >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of > our > >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other > >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and > >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) > > >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Orit Levin > >> RADVision Inc. > >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 > >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > >> www.radvision.com > >> orit(a)radvision.com > >> > >

1 0

H.225 GK discovery and DNS queries - use of DNS SRV RR
by Jean-Francois Mule 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

H.225 version 2, Appendix IV paragraph IV.1.1.2.2.1 includes an informative section on the use of DNS to discover gatekeeper services. This may also be in version 3 (did not check the exact paragraph though). The IETF recently published an update for the DNS SRV resource record (it is RFC 2782 - see below). The main changes are in the format of the SRV RR (service and protocol names now start with an underscore). The underscores were needed to prevent the name collisions with the hosts which happen to have the name in the format <service>.<protocol>.<domain>. This has any impact on the endpoints' SRV lookups on some implementations. It should be referenced in the implementors' guide for future reference. Regards, Jean-Francois. PS: RFC2782 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2782.txt -------------------------------------------------------------- Jean-François Mulé Clarent Corporation - Standards & Architecture Group T: +1 650 481-2835 jfm(a)clarent.com "It takes time to do it right, but there is no shorter way." --Watts S. Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Dear Rob! Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully. The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a contribution for Osaka meeting. I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward, especially if many people see it as valuable. BTW: Who said the work shouldn't be done jointly? My point was that it may start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU and IETF". And after all we are NOT talking about joined standard definition. In worst case about joined Network definition. :-)) Cheers, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert <Robert.Callaghan(a)icn.siemens.com> To: 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com>; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. Orit, This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: ======= Start 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: · Concerns about joint development with IETF · Which version of SIP would be used? · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - need to look at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and see how output compares with phrasing of work in these questions · Activities should include comparing call models, media signaling · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should not be done in SG16 · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - this would split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 have moved away from joint sessions) · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use only the IETF equivalent of a Recommendation) · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions on how to approach the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a framework. See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. ======= End This is the statement in the Q.13 report: ======= Start D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and Q14. ======= End I cannot see in these statements any thing representing an agreement as to the work to be performed. Your attached terms of reference were not approved at the working party, which is required, nor in the Question meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do not see how to move the work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. Therefore you paper on terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to the Osaka meeting for discussion. I do know that the proposal for a new question was rejected at the question level, and not brought forward to the working party or study group level. Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work with H.225.0 Annex G to TRIP. Other items are to follow. For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do not feel that the ITU should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not accept any IETF person as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done jointly. No one wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is the process to be used? Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. Hello Sebestyen! There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning, but I am sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to the attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in this paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible directions. We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an understanding of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for Osaka meeting. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Orit, >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in TD-74 >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP interworking. > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new >question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One >suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various >other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and >Q14." > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? > >Regards, >Istvan > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; >Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---------------- > >> ---------- >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] >> Reply To: Orit Levin >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >> >> Hi! >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as >> described in the initial paper. >> >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new specifications >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If found >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP scenarios), >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. >> >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name :-) >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all >> its meaning). >> >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of our >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. >> >> Best Regards, >> Orit Levin >> RADVision Inc. >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 >> www.radvision.com >> orit(a)radvision.com >>

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Tom-PT Taylor 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

I should make one thing clear, as it does not seem to be outside the IETF. There is only one official version of SIP: that presented in RFC 2705. BUT, just as SG 16 works on successive versions of H.323, the IETF is working on the next version of SIP. It is the discussion of what should be in the core specification next time around versus what should be in various extension documents which may be causing the confusion in people's minds. BTW, it seems to me that extensions are roughly the IETF equivalent of ITU-T options. That said, I agree with Bob that all that came out of the discussion was a feeling that the terms of any such work need to be hammered out, plus a willingness to consider further contributions so long as they don't get too detailed. Looks to me like this work is going to be done in TIPHON and the interoperability consortia. Neither the IETF nor the ITU-T really seems to want it at this point. > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:10 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Orit, > > This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: > > ======= Start > > 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] > This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: > · Concerns about joint development with IETF > · Which version of SIP would be used? > · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - need to look > at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and see how output > compares > with phrasing of work in these questions > · Activities should include comparing call models, media signaling > · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should not be done in > SG16 > · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - this would > split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 have moved away from > joint sessions) > · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use only the > IETF > equivalent of a Recommendation) > · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP > Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions on how to approach > the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled > architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a framework. > See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. > > ======= End > > This is the statement in the Q.13 report: > > ======= Start > > D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > > This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that > would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several > versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as > SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new > question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was > also > mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining > the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One > suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies > such > as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that > the > target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by > various > other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should > be > studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are > solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and > Q14. > > ======= End > > I cannot see in these statements any thing representing an agreement as to > the work to be performed. Your attached terms of reference were not > approved at the working party, which is required, nor in the Question > meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do not see how to move > the > work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. Therefore you paper > on > terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to the Osaka meeting > for discussion. > > I do know that the proposal for a new question was rejected at the > question > level, and not brought forward to the working party or study group level. > > Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work with H.225.0 Annex > G > to TRIP. Other items are to follow. > > For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do not feel that the > ITU > should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not accept any IETF person > as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done jointly. No one > wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is the process to be > used? > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Information and Communication Networks > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > Hello Sebestyen! > There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning, but I > am > sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional > related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to the > attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in > this > paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible > directions. > We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an understanding > of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for Osaka > meeting. > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit(a)radvision.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; 'Orit > Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > >Orit, > >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in > TD-74 > >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > > > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > > > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP > interworking. > > > > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > > > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that > >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several > >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as > >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new > >question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was > also > >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining > >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One > >suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies > such > >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that > the > >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by > various > >other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should > be > >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are > >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and > >Q14." > > > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? > > > >Regards, > >Istvan > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen > >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, > >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich > >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 > >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 > >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de > >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; > >Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 > >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > - > >---------------- > > > >> ---------- > >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > >> Reply To: Orit Levin > >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM > >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > >> > >> Hi! > >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as > >> described in the initial paper. > >> > >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new > specifications > >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to > >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If > found > >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or > >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP > scenarios), > >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are > >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. > >> > >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our > >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this > >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name > :-) > >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the > >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all > >> its meaning). > >> > >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of > our > >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other > >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and > >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) > >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Orit Levin > >> RADVision Inc. > >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 > >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > >> www.radvision.com > >> orit(a)radvision.com > >>

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Callaghan, Robert 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Orit, This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: ======= Start 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: · Concerns about joint development with IETF · Which version of SIP would be used? · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - need to look at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and see how output compares with phrasing of work in these questions · Activities should include comparing call models, media signaling · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should not be done in SG16 · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - this would split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 have moved away from joint sessions) · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use only the IETF equivalent of a Recommendation) · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions on how to approach the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a framework. See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. ======= End This is the statement in the Q.13 report: ======= Start D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and Q14. ======= End I cannot see in these statements any thing representing an agreement as to the work to be performed. Your attached terms of reference were not approved at the working party, which is required, nor in the Question meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do not see how to move the work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. Therefore you paper on terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to the Osaka meeting for discussion. I do know that the proposal for a new question was rejected at the question level, and not brought forward to the working party or study group level. Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work with H.225.0 Annex G to TRIP. Other items are to follow. For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do not feel that the ITU should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not accept any IETF person as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done jointly. No one wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is the process to be used? Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. Hello Sebestyen! There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning, but I am sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to the attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in this paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible directions. We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an understanding of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for Osaka meeting. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Orit, >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in TD-74 >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP interworking. > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new >question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One >suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various >other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and >Q14." > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? > >Regards, >Istvan > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; >Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---------------- > >> ---------- >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] >> Reply To: Orit Levin >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >> >> Hi! >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as >> described in the initial paper. >> >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new specifications >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If found >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP scenarios), >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. >> >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name :-) >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all >> its meaning). >> >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of our >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. >> >> Best Regards, >> Orit Levin >> RADVision Inc. >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 >> www.radvision.com >> orit(a)radvision.com >>

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Hello Sebestyen! There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning, but I am sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to the attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in this paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible directions. We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an understanding of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for Osaka meeting. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Orit, >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in TD-74 >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP interworking. > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new >question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One >suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various >other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and >Q14." > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? > >Regards, >Istvan > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; >Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---------------- > >> ---------- >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] >> Reply To: Orit Levin >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >> >> Hi! >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as >> described in the initial paper. >> >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new specifications >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If found >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP scenarios), >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. >> >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name :-) >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all >> its meaning). >> >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of our >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. >> >> Best Regards, >> Orit Levin >> RADVision Inc. >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 >> www.radvision.com >> orit(a)radvision.com >>

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Orit, I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in TD-74 (ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: "D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP interworking. D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 and SIP Networks This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16, that would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP as SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom of starting a new question near the end of the study period was also questioned. It was also mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of defining the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work. One suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards bodies such as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e. that the target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by various other bodies. There were various expressions of support that this should be studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are solicited. It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13 and Q14." Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work? Regards, Istvan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > ---------- > From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > Reply To: Orit Levin > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > Hi! > I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as > described in the initial paper. > > H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new specifications > in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to > consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If found > useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or > just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP scenarios), > standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are > connected since the first definitely helps the second. > > The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our > discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this > work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name :-) > ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the > only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all > its meaning). > > Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of our > interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other > organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and > IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) > keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. > > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit(a)radvision.com >

1 0

[H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Hi! I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T as described in the initial paper. H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new specifications in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323. If found useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End Services) or just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP scenarios), standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are connected since the first definitely helps the second. The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on our discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see this work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the name :-) ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work, the only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with all its meaning). Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics of our interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in other organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON and IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing list) keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Kumar, Vineet 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Paul, March 24 will NOT be good for me since I will be flying to Australia for the IETF meeting. My suggestion on conference calls is to pick a day (Monday, Tuesday, etc. ) and time when all conference calls will happen. I think it is hard to get an aggreement every time on the day/time of the conference time. vineet -----Original Message----- From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [mailto:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 4:16 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi ad hoc Mob. Group 1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to be defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next number available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy, or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used. 2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line document and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03 (version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version 3, and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the ToR document. Is that acceptable ? 3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information for our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate date. Regards Paul -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi, Paul and Jaakko: Many thanks for the information. Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for the document number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to diiferentiate from the reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering convention is used, please try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the middle, it creates confusions as it happened last time). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi Radhika et al, > > There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for mobility. The URL > is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I suggest that we > will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have some naming > convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents. Maybe Paul > should > assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the teleconferences... > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi, Jaakko: > > I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my > earlier email. > > I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys > decided where the > incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and > where the URL > would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, > please > let all of us > know soon. > > Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and > time as well? > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H > that were > > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc > mobility > group. Included > > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as > well as the > > meeting > > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in > Geneva. > > > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left > to > the VLF-section > > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize > for > any confusion > > it > > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the > document I am > > sending > > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in > Geneva, but I will > > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of > the draft annex. > > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite > unnecessary to > > argue > > about these, the TMSI is already included in the > proposed > new alias > > address > > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, > already needed in > > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the > mobility problem. I > > would > > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as > really the VLF we > > have > > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the > identifiers TMSI, > > etc. > > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. > However, it might be > > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers > mentioned > in the VLF (and > > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > << > File: > > GenevaMobility.zip >>

1 0

[Robutness] teleconferce -- March 1, 2000 11AM EST USA
by Maureen Stillman 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

The next robustness teleconference will be held on March 1, 2000 at 11AM EST USA. Please send me e-mail at maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com if you plan to attend so I can reserve sufficent resources. The dial in number is: (613)688-2795 The passcode is: 1235# (you must put in the pound sign) Agenda: 1) Discussion of the Robutness Framework document outline (attached) and 2) Solicit volunteers to fill in text for the outlined sections SG-16 Geneva meeting summary on robustness: The robutness ad hoc working group met several times and covered the following topics: 1) revisions to the Radvision submission on Robustness Procedure document Delayed-460. The revised document is WG2/TD 87 http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg16/sg16/td/wp2/2-087.doc. TD 87 was presented at the meeting and conditionally accepted for inclusion in H.323v4 and H.225. We are required to supply SDL for the robustness procedure by the SG-16 May, 2000 Rapporteur's meeting to ensure the document's ultimate inclusion in the standard. The robustness submission presented a robustness procedure for: * Detection of a TCP based connection failure * Synchronization of the two sides of the connection concerning the call state * Definition of recommended behavior in order to renew the call signaling connection and proceed as normal with the call * In the case of GK failure, the procedure allows calls to proceed without any interruption. 2) we worked on a Robustness framework outline (attached). The goal is to complete the framework document in time to submit it to the SG 16 meeting May 15-19. Here is some text from the opening summary: The H.323 series of Recommendations provides some support for building robust systems recommendations (e.g. support for specification of alternate gatekeepers and alternate endpoints). However, by themselves, these are incomplete. There are a number of unspecified issues such as: How are alternate endpoints and alternate gatekeepers used to "reconnect" calls that were in progress when a failure occurred? What signaling procedures are used to reconnect such calls and which device initiates the procedures? It is assumed that a well-defined model and explicit signaling procedures are needed to allow development of complete and interoperable solutions. However, no detailed procedures are specified in H.323 for dealing with system failures and re-establishing communication links after such a failure. This document proposes a framework towards providing robustness mechanisms in H.323 followed by the definition of robustness procedures for handling scenarios that are consistent with the framework. <<Robustness Framework 01.ZIP>> -- maureen Maureen Stillman Member of Scientific Staff Voice: (607)273-0724 x62 Nokia IP Telephony Fax: (607)275-3610 127 W. State Street Mobile: (607)227-2933 Ithaca, NY 14850 e-mail: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com www.nokia.com

1 0

Minor editorial errors in H.245 Version 6 ASN.1 syntax
by Mike Nilsson 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

I have just checked the ASN.1 syntax in version 6 of H.245. Two minor errors were detected, and should be corrected as below. Mr Bigi has been informed. I do not intend putting another version onto the PictureTel ftp site just to correct these errors. > 1) In ConferenceCapability, change VideoIndicateMixingCapability to > videoIndicateMixingCapability, that is, change > > VideoIndicateMixingCapability BOOLEAN, > > to > > videoIndicateMixingCapability BOOLEAN, > > } > > 2) In ConferenceIndication remove the comma at the end of the last line, > that is, change > > videoIndicateCompose VideoIndicateCompose, > > to > > videoIndicateCompose VideoIndicateCompose > > Best regards > Mike Nilsson > > ********************************************************************** > * Mike Nilsson Tel: +44 1473 645413 * > * Applications Technology Group Fax: +44 1473 645011 * > * Internet and Multimedia Applications Email: mike.nilsson(a)bt.com * > * BT Advanced Communications Technology Centre [B54 Room 94] * > * Adastral Park * > * Martlesham Heath * > * Ipswich IP5 3RE * > * UK * > ********************************************************************** > > >

1 0

Please add me to mailing list
by Barry Farber 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Please add me to mailing list Barry A. Farber ___________________ email :bfarber@netspeak.com NetSpeak Corporation 902 Clint Moore Rd. Suite 104 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Direct:(561) 912-8316, Main: (561) 998-8700, Fax (561) 989-2356 http://www.netspeak.com The Art of Sound Communication ==================================================================== Privacy and Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this transmission is intended for the above-named recipient(s) only and contains privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on such information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately.

1 0

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Joon Maeng 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

I second what Bahman said. It should be H.323-SIP or SIP-H.323 Interworking. Cheers. Regards, Joon > -----Original Message----- > From: Bahman Mobasser [mailto:bahman@bahman.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:50 PM > To: Orit Levin; Tom-PT Taylor; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; > Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika > R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr; > jo(a)teles.com; Joerg Ott > Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion > > I find the title H.323-Internet a bit disconcerting. Wasn't > H.323 usable on Internet up to now? The title seems to > suggest H.323 on Internet is something new! > > I know it is just a title, but I prefer simply H.323-SIP. > > Bahman > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Bahman Mobasser Tel: +33 1 30771608 > Alcatel Mobile: +33 6 12091822 > 10 rue Latécoère Fax: +33 1 30779914 > 78140 Vélizy Voice & Fax Mail: +33 1 5301 0789 > France Roaming email: Bahman(a)Bahman.org > ----------------------------------------------------- > > << OLE Object: Ensemble OLE >> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: jeudi 24 février 2000 01:51 > To: Tom-PT Taylor; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; > Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika > R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr; > jo(a)teles.com; Joerg Ott > Subject: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion > > Hello all! > I enjoyed to see a positive discussion this morning. > Therefore I would like to move the topic to the SG-16 mailing list and > indicate it by [H.323-Internet] topic. > François, any ideas for an alternative name? "SIP" is > limiting, "IETF" is > political... > > Joon, I think that a "scope" chapter is a good idea. I > completely agree that > before diving into details of our contributions, we have to > formulate this > part. On the other hand, I see it as an output of our initial > discussion, > rather then its starting point. If you already have in mind > some specifics > on the scope chapter, go ahead and put them on the (mailing) paper. > > In regards to starting a formal joined work with IETF and > pushing for a > working group. It is a sensitive issue (Are we in agreement on that?) > Everybody (as a company and as an individual) is free to > join, initiate or > participate in various standards bodies and pursue their goals. These > initiatives can be helpful for our work as well. I wouldn't > start our ITU > work from formal definition of relationships with other > standards bodies. As > we can see from Henning's mail, the good will from all of us > is a great > starting point! > I am afraid that not all of us will go to Australia. My > company (as many > others) will have representatives in SIP, Megaco and other > relevant working > groups. Nevertheless lets start the official H.323-Internet > work at ITU. > I hope to see more specific topics of interest and "a will" > to address them > in contributions for Osaka meeting. I will incorporate > François' additions. > Stephen, could you list IETF latest topics, list of services > and level of > scenarios that you would like to consider as a part of this work. > I wouldn't like to address the same things as TIPHON and > IETF do. They are > doing very well and we may help them if needed. All of us > have different > interests, but my personal opinion is that > - providing end user with end-to-end basic++ connectivity > - enhancing H.323 by using IETF technologies (which > definitely helps the > first one) > - finding common areas of interest among the companies > are the criteria for defining our work items. > BTW: Conference call is good, but lets do some work at home and on the > mailing list before we have an agenda to discuss. > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit(a)radvision.com

1 0

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Hi, Vipin: I would guess why not if you would desire to do so (unconditional). For your information: We like create standards. Henning's and/pr other proposals need to be approved by the standard bodies. We are working to achieve this goal. Thanks for the interest. Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: VIPIN PALAWAT [SMTP:vipin.palawat@wipro.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:27 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; Orit Levin; Tom-PT Taylor; > martinze(a)cig.mot.com; ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois > Audet; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; schulzrinne(a)cs.columbia.edu; > bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr; stephen.terrill(a)ericsson.com; jo(a)teles.com > Subject: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion > > Hi All, > > If I am not wrong, Kundan Singh and Henning Schulzrinne has recently(in > Jan 2000) submitted a draft for H.323-SIP interworking. > This is already in discussion at sip-h323(a)egroups.com > <mailto:sip-h323@egroups.com>. > > Does it mean that there is going to be another recommendation for the same > thing? > > "any company can be the co-author of this document > irrespective of the country of origin". > > I would like to know the requirements for any company to be a co-author of > this document. > > Best Regards > Vipin Palawat > _____________________________________ > Have a nice day !!! > > Vipin Palawat > Wipro Technologies : Telecom Solutions > Center of Excellence : Voice Over IP > 91-80-5539134 Extn: 407 > mailto: vipin.palawat(a)wipro.com <mailto:vipin.palawat@wipro.com> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC < rrroy(a)att.com <mailto:rrroy@att.com>> > To: Orit Levin < orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com>>; Tom-PT > Taylor < taylor(a)NORTELNETWORKS.COM <mailto:taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>>; < > martinze(a)cig.mot.com <mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com>>; < > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com <mailto:ranga.dendi@wcom.com>>; < joon_maeng(a)vtel.com > <mailto:joon_maeng@vtel.com>>; Francois Audet < audet(a)NORTELNETWORKS.COM > <mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>>; Dave Walker < drwalker(a)ss8networks.com > <mailto:drwalker@ss8networks.com>>; Paul E. Jones < > paul.jones(a)TIES.ITU.INT <mailto:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT>>; < > schulzrinne(a)cs.columbia.edu <mailto:schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>>; < > bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr <mailto:bahman.mobasser@alcatel.fr>>; < > stephen.terrill(a)ericsson.com <mailto:stephen.terrill@ericsson.com>>; < > jo(a)teles.com <mailto:jo@teles.com>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:30 AM > Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion > > > Hi, Orit: > > > > You are just right on time. I appreciate this. > > > > Please provide me couple of days (may be 2 more days). I would also like > to > > include Henning S., Bahman M, Stephen T. and others in this mail. > > > > My understanding is that you are willing to work as an editor of this > work > > in the SG16. > > > > Henning, just to let you know that SG16 has taken this as a work item. > > > > Going forward, we would also like to take this issue to the IETF to open > a > > work item there as well. Tom indicated that Scott B. likes to see that > there > > is enough support for this work item in the IETF before he considers > whether > > it is worthwhile to open a new WG or to be a part of another WG. Tom > might > > elaborate on this. > > > > I plan to attend the next IETF meeting in March'00. If we all plan to go > > there, we may push for this work in the IETF as well. > > > > I would request that all of us provide comments on this. If needed, we > all > > may be the co-author of this document to show that we have a wide > support > > for this paper. > > > > By the way, the next Q.13-14/16 Rapporteur meeting to be held in OSAKA, > > Japan (May 15-19) and any company can be the co-author of this document > > irrespective of the country of origin. Even Henning can also join in > this > > contribution although Columbia University is not a member of the ITU-T > > because a Rap. can allow anyone to participate in the meeting. > > > > Let us start this with a great cooperative mode. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > +1 732 420 1580 > > rrroy(a)att.com <mailto:rrroy@att.com> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Orit Levin [ SMTP:orit@radvision.com > <mailto:SMTP:orit@radvision.com>] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 4:17 PM > > > To: Tom-PT Taylor; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; martinze(a)cig.mot.com > <mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com>; > > > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com <mailto:ranga.dendi@wcom.com>; > joon_maeng(a)vtel.com <mailto:joon_maeng@vtel.com>; Francois Audet; Dave > Walker; > > > Paul E. Jones > > > Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion > > > > > > Hello all! > > > I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking > discussion/work > > > as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it, > comment, > > > provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to > forward > > > it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the > SG16 > > > mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community > > > before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the > first > > > round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list. > > > Regards, > > > Orit Levin > > > RADVision Inc. > > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > www.radvision.com <http://www.radvision.com> < > <http://www.radvision.com>> > > > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> < > <mailto:orit@radvision.com>> << File: H323-Internet.zip > > > >>

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Hi, Paul and Jaakko: Thanks for the update. I would propose that let Paul Guram control the TD numbers because Paul G. would be the single point of coordination (leaving no room for confusions either for Annex H, E, or I). I have a question to Jaakko related to the meeting minutes of Ad Hoc Mobility group of the last SG16 meeting: Why no mention about AT&T contributions (D.353 & D.354)? Would you please re-distribute the meeting minute updating the document stating the status of the AT&T contributions what exactly happened in the meeting? if you need help in this regard, please let me know. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T PS: A suggestion to Jaakko: With respect to TMSI, etc., I did not see any reference to any contributions in you email reply. Any additions/changes to the ITU document are made based on contributions. Only editorial changes are made by editors. In fact, TMSI, etc. were added when contributions were made and these were accepted after discussion. If there are problems, we would like to see more contributions explaining how these create problems. > -----Original Message----- > From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [SMTP:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 7:16 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi ad hoc Mob. Group > > 1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL > (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been > allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility > document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for > MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first > contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to > be > defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next > number > available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of > numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy, > or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that > would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used. > 2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for > Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line > document > and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03 > (version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into > Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas > Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version > 3, > and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the > ToR document. Is that acceptable ? > 3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information > for > our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are > most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate > date. > > Regards > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58 > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi, Paul and Jaakko: > > Many thanks for the information. > > Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for > the > document > number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to > diiferentiate > from the > reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering > convention > is used, please > try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the > middle, it creates > confusions as it happened last time). > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > Hi Radhika et al, > > > > There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for > mobility. The URL > > is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . > I > suggest that we > > will put our contributions there. It would be nice to > have > some naming > > convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the > documents. > Maybe Paul > > should > > assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the > teleconferences... > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC > [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 > 3:34 > PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > Hi, Jaakko: > > > > I agree with your reply that was also > reflected in my > > earlier email. > > > > I have a question to you and Paul Guram: > Have you guys > > decided where the > > incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc > group to be sent and > > where the URL > > would be for accessing to that website? > If > it is so, > > please > > let all of us > > know soon. > > > > Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the > meeting date and > > time as well? > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaakko Sundquist > [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 > 3:37 > AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm sending here the documents related > to H.323 Annex H > > that were > > > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by > the ad hoc > > mobility > > group. Included > > > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of > Reference for it as > > well as the > > > meeting > > > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc > group meetings in > > Geneva. > > > > > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location > area had been left > > to > > the VLF-section > > > of the draft annex. This is my mistake > and I apologize > > for > > any confusion > > > it > > > has created. I did not, however, take > it > off from the > > document I am > > > sending > > > here, this is the document that was > produced as a TD in > > Geneva, but I will > > > remove the location area from the > subsequent versions of > > the draft annex. > > > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my > view it is quite > > unnecessary to > > > argue > > > about these, the TMSI is already > included in the > > proposed > > new alias > > > address > > > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, > as I understand, > > already needed in > > > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one > scenario of the > > mobility problem. I > > > would > > > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 > Annex E IWF as > > really the VLF we > > > have > > > defined as a new mobility functional > entity, thus the > > identifiers TMSI, > > > etc. > > > would be needed in the VLF at least in > some cases. > > However, it might be > > > suitable to indicate that all of the > identifiers > > mentioned > > in the VLF (and > > > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > > > > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > In a hole in the ground there > lived > a hobbit. > > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled > with the ends of > > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet > a > dry, bare, > > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit > down on or to eat: > > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that > means comfort. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > << > > File: > > > GenevaMobility.zip >>

1 0

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Gösta Linder (LME) 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Paul, 22 and 23 are fine with me/Gösta -----Original Message----- From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [mailto:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM] Sent: den 24 februari 2000 01:16 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi ad hoc Mob. Group 1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to be defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next number available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy, or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used. 2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line document and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03 (version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version 3, and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the ToR document. Is that acceptable ? 3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information for our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate date. Regards Paul -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi, Paul and Jaakko: Many thanks for the information. Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for the document number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to diiferentiate from the reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering convention is used, please try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the middle, it creates confusions as it happened last time). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi Radhika et al, > > There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for mobility. The URL > is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I suggest that we > will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have some naming > convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents. Maybe Paul > should > assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the teleconferences... > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi, Jaakko: > > I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my > earlier email. > > I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys > decided where the > incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and > where the URL > would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, > please > let all of us > know soon. > > Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and > time as well? > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H > that were > > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc > mobility > group. Included > > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as > well as the > > meeting > > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in > Geneva. > > > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left > to > the VLF-section > > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize > for > any confusion > > it > > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the > document I am > > sending > > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in > Geneva, but I will > > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of > the draft annex. > > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite > unnecessary to > > argue > > about these, the TMSI is already included in the > proposed > new alias > > address > > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, > already needed in > > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the > mobility problem. I > > would > > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as > really the VLF we > > have > > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the > identifiers TMSI, > > etc. > > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. > However, it might be > > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers > mentioned > in the VLF (and > > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > << > File: > > GenevaMobility.zip >>

1 0

Re: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Orit Levin 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hello all! I enjoyed to see a positive discussion this morning. Therefore I would like to move the topic to the SG-16 mailing list and indicate it by [H.323-Internet] topic. François, any ideas for an alternative name? "SIP" is limiting, "IETF" is political... Joon, I think that a "scope" chapter is a good idea. I completely agree that before diving into details of our contributions, we have to formulate this part. On the other hand, I see it as an output of our initial discussion, rather then its starting point. If you already have in mind some specifics on the scope chapter, go ahead and put them on the (mailing) paper. In regards to starting a formal joined work with IETF and pushing for a working group. It is a sensitive issue (Are we in agreement on that?) Everybody (as a company and as an individual) is free to join, initiate or participate in various standards bodies and pursue their goals. These initiatives can be helpful for our work as well. I wouldn't start our ITU work from formal definition of relationships with other standards bodies. As we can see from Henning's mail, the good will from all of us is a great starting point! I am afraid that not all of us will go to Australia. My company (as many others) will have representatives in SIP, Megaco and other relevant working groups. Nevertheless lets start the official H.323-Internet work at ITU. I hope to see more specific topics of interest and "a will" to address them in contributions for Osaka meeting. I will incorporate François' additions. Stephen, could you list IETF latest topics, list of services and level of scenarios that you would like to consider as a part of this work. I wouldn't like to address the same things as TIPHON and IETF do. They are doing very well and we may help them if needed. All of us have different interests, but my personal opinion is that - providing end user with end-to-end basic++ connectivity - enhancing H.323 by using IETF technologies (which definitely helps the first one) - finding common areas of interest among the companies are the criteria for defining our work items. BTW: Conference call is good, but lets do some work at home and on the mailing list before we have an agenda to discuss. Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com

2 1

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi, Orit: You are just right on time. I appreciate this. Please provide me couple of days (may be 2 more days). I would also like to include Henning S., Bahman M, Stephen T. and others in this mail. My understanding is that you are willing to work as an editor of this work in the SG16. Henning, just to let you know that SG16 has taken this as a work item. Going forward, we would also like to take this issue to the IETF to open a work item there as well. Tom indicated that Scott B. likes to see that there is enough support for this work item in the IETF before he considers whether it is worthwhile to open a new WG or to be a part of another WG. Tom might elaborate on this. I plan to attend the next IETF meeting in March'00. If we all plan to go there, we may push for this work in the IETF as well. I would request that all of us provide comments on this. If needed, we all may be the co-author of this document to show that we have a wide support for this paper. By the way, the next Q.13-14/16 Rapporteur meeting to be held in OSAKA, Japan (May 15-19) and any company can be the co-author of this document irrespective of the country of origin. Even Henning can also join in this contribution although Columbia University is not a member of the ITU-T because a Rap. can allow anyone to participate in the meeting. Let us start this with a great cooperative mode. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 4:17 PM > To: Tom-PT Taylor; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; martinze(a)cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; > Paul E. Jones > Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion > > Hello all! > I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work > as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it, comment, > provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to forward > it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the SG16 > mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community > before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the first > round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list. > Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com <http://www.radvision.com> > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> << File: H323-Internet.zip > >>

3 2

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Guram Paul-LPG019 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hi ad hoc Mob. Group 1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to be defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next number available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy, or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used. 2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line document and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03 (version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version 3, and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the ToR document. Is that acceptable ? 3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information for our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate date. Regards Paul -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] Hi, Paul and Jaakko: Many thanks for the information. Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for the document number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to diiferentiate from the reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering convention is used, please try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the middle, it creates confusions as it happened last time). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi Radhika et al, > > There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for mobility. The URL > is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I suggest that we > will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have some naming > convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents. Maybe Paul > should > assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the teleconferences... > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:] > > Hi, Jaakko: > > I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my > earlier email. > > I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys > decided where the > incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and > where the URL > would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, > please > let all of us > know soon. > > Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and > time as well? > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [H.323Mobility:] > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H > that were > > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc > mobility > group. Included > > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as > well as the > > meeting > > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in > Geneva. > > > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left > to > the VLF-section > > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize > for > any confusion > > it > > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the > document I am > > sending > > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in > Geneva, but I will > > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of > the draft annex. > > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite > unnecessary to > > argue > > about these, the TMSI is already included in the > proposed > new alias > > address > > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand, > already needed in > > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the > mobility problem. I > > would > > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as > really the VLF we > > have > > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the > identifiers TMSI, > > etc. > > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases. > However, it might be > > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers > mentioned > in the VLF (and > > other) section(s) are not mandatory. > > > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>> > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > << > File: > > GenevaMobility.zip >>

2 1

Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729
by Frank Derks 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Tom, section 3 of RFC1890 indeed specifies how additional payload types have to be registered with the IANA. Table 2 in section 7 specifies the assigned (and unassigned) payload types at the time of publication of the RFC (presumably). This table is no longer in line with the table that can be found at the IANA Web site (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/rtp-parameters) however. Since G.729 is not present in either of these tables, it would seem that somebody will need to undertake the action to do so. Especially because H.225.0 _does_ specify a payload type for G.729 and I think it is desirable that the code that is being used is not assigned (inadvertently) to some other codec. Whose responsibility would it be to do so? ITU-SG16? ----------------------------------------------------- Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | |1200 JD Hilversum | |The Netherlands | ----------------------------------------------------| E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | ----------------------------------------------------- taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM@SMTP@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM on 23/02/2000 17:24:37 Please respond to ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP Sent by: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP cc: Subject: Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 Classification: Restricted As I understand it (and I'd better be right, because I have to do similar things for H.248!) the stuff initially defined in the RFC that sets up the registration process (RFC 1890) does not go into the IANA database -- only subsequent registrations. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Derks [SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:30 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > > H.225.0 specifies that the payload types for G.723.1 and G.729 are 4 and > 18 respectively. > When I take a look at the registered payload types at the IANA, these two > codecs are > not listed. > > Does this mean that the IANA list is not up-to-date or that these codecs > are not officially > registered. > > Frank > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | > Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | > Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | > |1200 JD Hilversum | > |The Netherlands | > ----------------------------------------------------| > E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | > WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | > -----------------------------------------------------

2 1