- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hi Scott: I guess that H.323 is a transport independent multimedia (audio, video, and/or data) application. That is, H.323 can be transferred over any packet network (e.g., IP, ATM, etc). So, one of the most important aspects of H.323 is to define signaling messages that will carry the QOS information at the H.323 application level. H.323 will then signal the underlying transport network to support the appropriate QOS. I think that SG16 will limit their multimedia QOS activities at the H.323 application layer. Now how this H.323 application level QOS information will be implemented over a specific network layer can be implementation specific. For example, if it is an Internet/IP network, IETF's DiffServ, RSVP, intserv, and other QOS related services can be used by H.323's application level QOS signaling messages. Similarly, ATM network's QOS related services can also be used by the H.323's application level signaling messages. My view is that H.323's application level QOS work is intended to complement all QOS related works that are being carried out at the lower "network layer (e.g., IP/Internet, ATM, etc.)" in all standard bodies/forums (e.g., IETF, ATM Forum, T1A1, TIPHON, IMTC, MSAF, etc.). I do agree with you that no work should be undertaken that becomes counter productive with respect to on-going works of IETF, ATM Forum, T1A1, TIPHON, IMTC, MSAF, and other standard bodies/forums. My view is that only complementary solutions should be considered. With respect to H.323 QOS activity group's membership (per Joon Maeng's email), I am not sure what actually it means. I thought that it might be a part of the activities of SG16 to address QOS related issues at the H.323 application layer. Joon Maeng may elaborate more on that. Regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob@HARVARD.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 4:52 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H.323/VoIP QoS > > I do hope that you-all take a look at what is going on in the IETF > before going off to invent a different QoS for IP technology - SG16 > doing that sort of thing would seem to be quite counter productive > > I would suggest that people interested in IP QoS get on the IETF mailing > lists > (diffserv, RSVP, and intserv - see www.ietf.org under working > groups to find out how) > > Scott > > ---- > From ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Mar 3 12:55:07 1999 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) > Content-Type: text/plain > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:41:50 -0500 > Reply-To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > Sender: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > Subject: Re: H.323/VoIP QoS > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Hi Everyone: > > I support this effort. In fact, Maeng and I had a very brief talk in the > last Monterey meeting related to the QOS aspects of H.323. Recent AT&T, > VTEL, and TIPHON contributions reflect many aspects of H.323/VoIP QOS. > > I also got encouraging responses when we talked about QOS related issues > to > many other companies. I guess that all of us would be benefited if the > H.323/VoIP QOS aspects are satisfactorily addressed. > > Hope that the QOS activity group will be formed. > > Thanks, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > (732) 420 1580 > rrroy(a)att.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joon Maeng [SMTP:Joon_Maeng@VTEL.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:40 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: H.323/VoIP QoS > > > > Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've > > talked to > > several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about > > establishing > > an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in > TRANSPORTING > > REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP > > network. > > I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them > > agreed > > that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major > barriers > > in > > deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by > > having a > > QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be > > interested in > > the activities described in the following: > > > > Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. > > > > Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the > packet > > network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. > The > > deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of > > QoS > > supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work > > together to > > access the issues and provide solutions for the users. > > > > Proposed charter of the group: > > - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with > > long-duration > > compared to web-access) in the IP network, > > - Find the solutions to resolve issues, > > - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on > > various > > QoS solutions among participants, > > submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and > > facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and > > application > > standards, > > - and education, promotion, etc. > > > > I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be > > determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that > > everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at > the > > QoS > > issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the > > proposed > > group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum > > that is > > interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP > > industry > > through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email > > reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the > > following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ > > vtel.com) > > if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks > > via > > email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly > > appreciated. > > Regards, > > Joon

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS (further to Randy Bloomfield's note)
by Eric Hauch 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Chris, Thanks for your note. Firstly I simply used Joon's mailing list (plus some of the T1 folks). I see you did this as well - which is good (keeps everyone informed). Committee T1 is not affiliated with the IETF but various T1 groups work in concert with the IETF on a fairly wide range of issues, this being one of them. For instance, when we first started the MMoIP project, I gave a presentation to the IETF in Memphis to explain what we're doing and why. Various members of T1A1 also participate in the IETF - and the IETF leadership has and is participating in our work. Working Groups are managed by Committee T1 but are not voting bodies. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend and participate - the same is true for the Ad Hoc groups (which are really just topic-focused subsets of WG's). One of the values of T1 comes at standards setting time - and this is a decided by member votes in keeping with the general requirements for ANSI accreditation. Please understand, my note is not intended to discourage Joon's initiative - but rather to offer the work T1A1 has already done, to leverage our respective memberships and to provide a clear path to getting a standard (reference Joon's 4th charter point). This I'm sure was the spirit of Randy's note as well. Eric >>> Christian Kuhtz <ck(a)ns1.adsu.bellsouth.com> 03/03 4:14 PM >>> Eric, I think the purpose of this group is to discuss and explore ways of providing IP QoS for VoIP networks, and to evaluate applicable existing technology as well as provide feedback for emerging technology. I don't quite understand why we need a managed membership committee to run this -- particularly the managed membership part is what I find troubling. What benefit are you providing? Personally, I find this difficult to define, because you are obviously not the premier forum for IP related issues (the IETF is). Please explain. So, if you're affiliated with the IETF, why don't you participate in our working group rather than we move our IP network related issues into T1? And, was it really neccessary to carbon copy over half a dozen mailing lists on this subject matter? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Chris -- "Kannst du nicht allen gefallen durch deine That und dein Kunstwerk -- mach es wenigen recht, vielen gefallen ist schlimm" -- Schiller [Disclaimer: I speak for myself and my views are my own and not in any way to be construed as the views of BellSouth Corporation. ]

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS (further to Randy Bloomfield's note)
by Christian Kuhtz 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Eric, I think the purpose of this group is to discuss and explore ways of providing IP QoS for VoIP networks, and to evaluate applicable existing technology as well as provide feedback for emerging technology. I don't quite understand why we need a managed membership committee to run this -- particularly the managed membership part is what I find troubling. What benefit are you providing? Personally, I find this difficult to define, because you are obviously not the premier forum for IP related issues (the IETF is). Please explain. So, if you're affiliated with the IETF, why don't you participate in our working group rather than we move our IP network related issues into T1? And, was it really neccessary to carbon copy over half a dozen mailing lists on this subject matter? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Chris -- "Kannst du nicht allen gefallen durch deine That und dein Kunstwerk -- mach es wenigen recht, vielen gefallen ist schlimm" -- Schiller [Disclaimer: I speak for myself and my views are my own and not in any way to be construed as the views of BellSouth Corporation. ]

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Scott Bradner 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

I do hope that you-all take a look at what is going on in the IETF before going off to invent a different QoS for IP technology - SG16 doing that sort of thing would seem to be quite counter productive I would suggest that people interested in IP QoS get on the IETF mailing lists (diffserv, RSVP, and intserv - see www.ietf.org under working groups to find out how) Scott ----

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS (further to Randy Bloomfield's note)
by Eric Hauch 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon, My name is Eric Hauch. I am the current Ad Hoc Group leader for a Working Group T1A1.5 activity that appears to closely parallel your initiative. Committee T1 (of which TSC T1A1 is part) is an open standards forum sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) and accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). As such, Committee T1 is the ANSI authority in the United States for defining telecommunications interface and performance standards. Committee T1 TSC's are also a key source of research and advice to the US State Department's delegations to the ITU - and have formal liaisons with the IETF. The current Ad Hoc Group work on defining multimedia performance requirements for business quality conferences carried over IP based networks is part of addressing these standards setting responsibilities. We very much share the reasons you state for needing these QoS standards soon. The work of the MMoIP Ad Hoc Group is about 60% complete (i.e. we're just over half way to making a recommendation to send our draft standard to T1 letter ballot). The last Ad Hoc group conference call was Feb 25, 99 - the next, Apr 1, 99. Attendance and participation in any T1 activity is completely open. Voting at the TSC and T1 levels is by membership (for example, VTel is a member of T1A1). You can find out more about TSC T1A1, WG T1A1.5 and the Ad Hoc Group activities (through the posted documentation) at www.t1.org. As past chair of WG T1A1.5, I have enjoyed VTel's excellent past contributions to our efforts and have been very supportive and encouraging of VTel's particpation in this particular Ad Hoc group. To the extent your initiative indicates a renewed interest on your part and others in your industry segment, I am delighted - and encourage and welcome all of you to work with us. I'll look forward to hearing from you, Eric G. Hauch Vice-Chair T1A1 615-532-2365 ehauch(a)mail.state.tn.us >>> "Joon Maeng" <Joon_Maeng(a)vtel.com> 03/03 10:40 AM >>> Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've talked to several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about establishing an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP network. I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them agreed that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers in deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by having a QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be interested in the activities described in the following: Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of QoS supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work together to access the issues and provide solutions for the users. Proposed charter of the group: - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with long-duration compared to web-access) in the IP network, - Find the solutions to resolve issues, - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on various QoS solutions among participants, submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and application standards, - and education, promotion, etc. I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the QoS issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the proposed group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum that is interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP industry through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks via email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Joon

1 0

BT change of representative
by Pete Cordell 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Dear All, As you may know by know, I am moving on to own little venture. In case you were wondering, it doesn't involve H.323!!! This does mean that I will not be representing BT any more in SG16. This role will probably be taken over by Morgan Potter at morgan.potter(a)bt.com, so if you have any questions from BT he is the one to ask. Also Mike should be able to help. I would like to take this opportunity to say that, despite the hard work, I have enjoyed my time working with you and I wish you all the best. And, who knows, perhaps we'll meet again in the future - If you get back to Ipswich sometime on your travels, then look me up (assuming the Rapporteurs give you time to get out the meetings!). Regards, Pete ================================= Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell(a)bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 =================================

1 0

H.323/VoIP QoS
by Joon Maeng 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've talked to several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about establishing an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP network. I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them agreed that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers in deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by having a QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be interested in the activities described in the following: Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of QoS supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work together to access the issues and provide solutions for the users. Proposed charter of the group: - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with long-duration compared to web-access) in the IP network, - Find the solutions to resolve issues, - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on various QoS solutions among participants, submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and application standards, - and education, promotion, etc. I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the QoS issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the proposed group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum that is interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP industry through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks via email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Joon

4 3

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Agans, Dave 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon, Count Zydacron in. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Joon Maeng [mailto:Joon_Maeng@VTEL.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:40 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.323/VoIP QoS > > > Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in > USA. I've talked to > several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings > about establishing > an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in > TRANSPORTING > REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially > in the IP network. > I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. > Most of them agreed > that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of > major barriers in > deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would > benefit by having a > QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company > would be interested in > the activities described in the following: > > Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. > > Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, > for the packet > network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP > network. The > deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due > to lack of QoS > supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry > shall work together to > access the issues and provide solutions for the users. > > Proposed charter of the group: > - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls > with long-duration > compared to web-access) in the IP network, > - Find the solutions to resolve issues, > - Execute solutions via various processes such as building > consensus on various > QoS solutions among participants, > submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and > facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards > and application > standards, > - and education, promotion, etc. > > I would expect the final charter and the structure of the > group will be > determined by the participants and their interests. I > would say that > everything is open at this time except that the industry > shall look at the QoS > issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify > that the proposed > group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group > or a forum that is > interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for > H.323/VoIP industry > through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set > up an email > reflector for the initial discussions among participants and > decide the > following steps based on the discussions. Please email me > (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) > if you and your company would be interested in joining the > initial talks via > email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be > greatly appreciated. > Regards, > Joon >

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Roy Spitzer 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon, Telogy would like to join this effort. Regards, Roy Roy Spitzer Telogy Networks, Inc. Phone: (301) 515-6531 20250 Century Blvd. Fax: (301) 515-7954 Germantown, MD 20874 Email: rspitzer(a)telogy.com -----Original Message----- From: Joon Maeng [mailto:Joon_Maeng@VTEL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:40 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.INTEL.com Subject: H.323/VoIP QoS Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've talked to several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about establishing an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP network. I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them agreed that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers in deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by having a QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be interested in the activities described in the following: Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of QoS supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work together to access the issues and provide solutions for the users. Proposed charter of the group: - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with long-duration compared to web-access) in the IP network, - Find the solutions to resolve issues, - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on various QoS solutions among participants, submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and application standards, - and education, promotion, etc. I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the QoS issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the proposed group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum that is interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP industry through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks via email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Joon

1 0

AW: H.323 multipoint conference with consultation calls?
by Klaghofer Karl ICN IB NL IP 7 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hans, To make use of the conference "invite" approach, you always have to have "created" (conference create) a two party conference before. Here is my understanding of the proposal of the TD-26 Monterey how to make use of the conference invite function (H.323 clause 8.4.3) for Conference out of Consultation: Precondition: A has put B on hold (call #1) and consults to C (call #2). Upon conference request by user A while being in consultation, endpoint A has now to send a new SETUP (call #3) with conference "create" to an MCU. Afterwards endpoint A sends a further SETUP (#4) with conference "invite" to the MCU (causing the MCU to call B). Furthermore A has to send another SETUP (#5) to the MCU causing the MCU to call C. Finally you end up having calls between the MCU and the endpoints A, B and C. However, with the current draft H.450.8 approach, the SETUP#3 sent from A to the MCU includes all the information (h450 operation) the MCU needs to complete the conference. If the MCU does not understand this optimized procedure, a fallback to H.225.0 procedures is defined. Your question on adding further users D, E, ...: Once the multipoint conference is in place, draft H.450.8 defines to make use of existing conference "invite" function to add further parties. This proposal was made to re-use existing H.225.0 functions as far as possible at this stage. According to your suggestion, a H.450 operation could be defined very easily (to be sent from a conferee (A, B or C) to the MCU in a FACILITY causing the MCU to call user D). This would especially make sense if the user A decides to add a couple of users (D, E, F and G) to an existing multipoint conference in one step (this is very likely at a PC based H.323 client where the user A may select 4 additional users and clicks the "add to conference" button. It would save 4 SETUPs compared to the current description. Regards, Karl ------------------------------------------------ Karl Klaghofer, Siemens AG, Dpmt. ICN IB NL IP7 Hofmannstr. 51, D-81359 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 89 722 31488, Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 e-mail: karl.klaghofer(a)vs.siemens.de > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Hans Andersson E (ERA) (by way of Sakae OKUBO) > [SMTP:Hans.E.Andersson@ERA.ERICSSON.SE] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 3. März 1999 17:08 > An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Betreff: H.323 multipoint conference with consultation calls? > > Hello! > > I have a question regarding multipoint conferences in H.323. > > In the H.323 standard, it seems as if the "Conference Invite" > functionality > (see 8.4.3.5) requires that calling party (Endpoint 1) already before > making > the call set-up to Endpoint 2 (E2) must have decided that E2 shall be > brought into the conference as a new member. So it is not possible for E1 > to > make an enquiry (consultation) call to see if E2 has the time to > participate, has the required competence or whatever the criterion for > participation might be. > > But, when I look at the Draft new recommendation H.450.8 "Conference out > of > Consultation Supplementary Service for H.323 (SS-CoC)" (February 8, 1999), > it seems to have what I am looking for. > > According to this recommendation, it is possible to make a call, put the > called (or calling of course) party on hold, make a consultation call and > at > that moment (after talking to the E2 party) decide to create a conference. > > But how do I do if I want to expand this to yet another party in the same > way? According to H.450.8 (7.4.1), I shall use the H.323 "conference > invite". > > That would mean that I have to use different principles when I go from a > 2-party to a 3-party call, than when I go from an N-party to an > (N+1)-party > call. Does it have to be like that? I really think that it would be nice > if > the H.450.8 recommendation can be expanded to cover also cases when the > held > call is a conference. Currently, it only covers the case where the held > call > is to to a remote user. > > I would be glad to get your opinion regarding this. > > Best regards > > Hans Andersson > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Hans Andersson > System Design > GSM Systems > Tel: > +46 8 757 22 38 > Ericsson Radio Systems AB Fax: +46 8 > 404 95 30 > F $B3SSH (Batan 6, Kista > Mob: > +46 70 533 91 12 > S-164 80 STOCKHOLM > Hans.E.Andersson(a)era.ericsson.se > > _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Peter Tam 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon: Please count me in. Thanks. Regards..... Peter Tam, Nortel Networks Email: ptam(a)nortelnetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: Joon Maeng [SMTP:Joon_Maeng@vtel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:40 AM To: mpls(a)UU.NET; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com; voip(a)imtc.org; interwkg(a)imtc.org; h323implementors(a)imtc.org; 'T1A1.2 e-mail reflector'; diff-serv-interest(a)BayNetworks.COM; int-serv(a)isi.edu Subject: H.323/VoIP QoS Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've talked to several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about establishing an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP network. I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them agreed that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers in deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by having a QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be interested in the activities described in the following: Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of QoS supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work together to access the issues and provide solutions for the users. Proposed charter of the group: - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with long-duration compared to web-access) in the IP network, - Find the solutions to resolve issues, - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on various QoS solutions among participants, submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and application standards, - and education, promotion, etc. I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the QoS issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the proposed group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum that is interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP industry through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks via email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Joon

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hi Everyone: I support this effort. In fact, Maeng and I had a very brief talk in the last Monterey meeting related to the QOS aspects of H.323. Recent AT&T, VTEL, and TIPHON contributions reflect many aspects of H.323/VoIP QOS. I also got encouraging responses when we talked about QOS related issues to many other companies. I guess that all of us would be benefited if the H.323/VoIP QOS aspects are satisfactorily addressed. Hope that the QOS activity group will be formed. Thanks, Radhika R. Roy AT&T (732) 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Joon Maeng [SMTP:Joon_Maeng@VTEL.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:40 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.323/VoIP QoS > > Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've > talked to > several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about > establishing > an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING > REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP > network. > I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them > agreed > that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers > in > deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by > having a > QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be > interested in > the activities described in the following: > > Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. > > Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet > network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The > deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of > QoS > supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work > together to > access the issues and provide solutions for the users. > > Proposed charter of the group: > - Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with > long-duration > compared to web-access) in the IP network, > - Find the solutions to resolve issues, > - Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on > various > QoS solutions among participants, > submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and > facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and > application > standards, > - and education, promotion, etc. > > I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be > determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that > everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the > QoS > issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the > proposed > group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum > that is > interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP > industry > through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email > reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the > following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ > vtel.com) > if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks > via > email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly > appreciated. > Regards, > Joon

1 0

Re: H.323/VoIP QoS
by Tony Crossman 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon, please include me in any further discussions. thanks Tony Crossman PictureTel At 10:40 AM 3/3/99 -0600, Joon Maeng wrote: >Greetings! My name is Joon Maeng. I work for VTEL Corp in USA. I've talked to >several companies while I was attending ITU and IETF meetings about establishing >an ad-hoc group to address QoS (Quality of Service) issues in TRANSPORTING >REAL-TIME TRAFFICS in the packet switched network, especially in the IP network. >I was very encouraged by responses from those companies. Most of them agreed >that lack of QoS support for real-time traffics was one of major barriers in >deploying H.323/VoIP products and the H.323 industry would benefit by having a >QoS activity group. I would like to ask if your company would be interested in >the activities described in the following: > >Proposed name of the group: H.323/VoIP QoS Activity Group. > >Motivation: ITU defined a good conference standard, H.323, for the packet >network. IETF is actively defining QoS standards for the IP network. The >deployment of H.323/VoIP products has been slow partially due to lack of QoS >supports in current IP network. The H.323/VoIP industry shall work together to >access the issues and provide solutions for the users. > >Proposed charter of the group: >- Assess QoS issues in transporting real-time traffics (calls with long-duration >compared to web-access) in the IP network, >- Find the solutions to resolve issues, >- Execute solutions via various processes such as building consensus on various >QoS solutions among participants, > submitting recommendations to standardization bodies if needed, and >facilitating inter-operablity testing between QoS standards and application > standards, >- and education, promotion, etc. > >I would expect the final charter and the structure of the group will be >determined by the participants and their interests. I would say that >everything is open at this time except that the industry shall look at the QoS >issues seriously for real-time traffics. I'd like to clarify that the proposed >group is not a group to standardize the QoS. It is a group or a forum that is >interested in helping and promoting the real-time QoS for H.323/VoIP industry >through various methods (to be determined). I plan to set up an email >reflector for the initial discussions among participants and decide the >following steps based on the discussions. Please email me (joon_maeng@ vtel.com) >if you and your company would be interested in joining the initial talks via >email reflector. Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. >Regards, >Joon > > > > > ********************************************* Antony Crossman PictureTel Corporation 100 Minuteman Road, Andover, MA 01810, USA Tel. +1 (978) 623 4557 Fax. +1 (978) 749 2804 email. tonyc @pictel.com *********************************************

1 0

H.323 multipoint conference with consultation calls?
by Hans Andersson E (ERA) (by way of Sakae OKUBO) 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hello! I have a question regarding multipoint conferences in H.323. In the H.323 standard, it seems as if the "Conference Invite" functionality (see 8.4.3.5) requires that calling party (Endpoint 1) already before making the call set-up to Endpoint 2 (E2) must have decided that E2 shall be brought into the conference as a new member. So it is not possible for E1 to make an enquiry (consultation) call to see if E2 has the time to participate, has the required competence or whatever the criterion for participation might be. But, when I look at the Draft new recommendation H.450.8 "Conference out of Consultation Supplementary Service for H.323 (SS-CoC)" (February 8, 1999), it seems to have what I am looking for. According to this recommendation, it is possible to make a call, put the called (or calling of course) party on hold, make a consultation call and at that moment (after talking to the E2 party) decide to create a conference. But how do I do if I want to expand this to yet another party in the same way? According to H.450.8 (7.4.1), I shall use the H.323 "conference invite". That would mean that I have to use different principles when I go from a 2-party to a 3-party call, than when I go from an N-party to an (N+1)-party call. Does it have to be like that? I really think that it would be nice if the H.450.8 recommendation can be expanded to cover also cases when the held call is a conference. Currently, it only covers the case where the held call is to to a remote user. I would be glad to get your opinion regarding this. Best regards Hans Andersson _____________________________________________________________________ Hans Andersson System Design GSM Systems Tel: +46 8 757 22 38 Ericsson Radio Systems AB Fax: +46 8 404 95 30 F $B3SSH (Batan 6, Kista Mob: +46 70 533 91 12 S-164 80 STOCKHOLM Hans.E.Andersson(a)era.ericsson.se _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

VoIP QOS!
by long keping 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Joon, please include me in any further discussions. thanks Long keping lkp(a)bupt.edu.cn

1 0

Re: H.GCP Audio Call
by Roni Even 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Bryan, Please count me in on the call. Roni Even ********************************************** Roni Even VP Product Marketing Accord Video Telecommunication Email: roni_e(a)accord.co.il Tel: +972-3-9251412 Fax: +972-3-9211571 *************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Hill [SMTP:bhill@VIDEOSERVER.COM] > Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 9:37 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H.GCP Audio Call > > Colleagues, > > I would like to invite you to participate in audio call on Thursday > March > 4th from 11AM until 1PM EST to discuss H.GCP. The call details are as > follows: > > Calls from outside the US: 312-470-7273 > Calls from within the US: 888-847-7598 > Passcode: BryanHill > Confirmation number: 5193957 > > Please respond to me directly to reserve a port for this call (where > ever > possible please try to minimize port requirements by sharing a port > with a > colleague). > > The main purpose of this initial call will be to review requirements > and > terminology for H.GCP which were discussed in Monterey. I have been > editing > these sections and will make them available on the ptel SG16 ftp site > no > later than tomorrow 3/2. The second purpose of the call is to > identify > other areas that need to be discussed in subsequent audio calls. An > initial > pass of topics is listed below. I would like to solicit volunteers to > submit written contribution in each of the areas identified and use > these > submissions as a basis for discussing topics in future audio calls. > In this > manner I hope to scope our discussion to specific technical topics and > combine the benefits from MDCP and MGCP approaches into H.GCP. > > > 1) Control model > a) Controller to gateway associations > b) Controller to internal gateway entity associations > c) Failover > d) Security > 2) Connection model > a) Controllable entities > b) Controllable entity properties > 3) Commands > a) Types > b) Parameters > c) Acknowledgement styles/sequencing > 4) Messages (i.e.-command packaging) > 5) Message Encoding > 6) Resource management > 7) Scripting/Packages > 8) Interface C protocol (Q.931/Q.764) > 9) Interface B protocol (Q.931 ) > > > Best Regards, > Bryan > _________________________________________________________ > Bryan Hill > VideoServer Inc. > (781) 505-2159 > <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

1 0

Re: Change of address
by Eli Doron 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hi Jim, Good luck in your new job. Eli Doron RADVision -----Original Message----- From: Jim Toga [SMTP:jim.toga@intel.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 1999 10:50 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Change of address After today I am joining an IP telephony startup. For any directed email to me, please use the following address - the Intel address will be deactivated. jim.toga(a)metatel.com (my response time might be a little 'spotty' over the next couple of weeks) Best Regards, jimt. +1-503-264-8816(voice) Intel - Hillsboro, OR mailto:jim.toga@intel.com mailto:james.toga@ties.itu.int PGP keyID 36 07 86 49 7D 74 DF 57 50 CB BA 32 08 9C 7C 41

1 0

Re: Liaison from ITU Question 21/15
by Douglas Clowes 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

Bob, What's your point? :) Looking at the various questions, "relationships" describe what is wanted from the group, rather than the entire scope of their operation. If your concern relates to SG13 and their role with IP, ITU central seems to support them in that role. Study Group 16's "Area of Responsibility" is, unfortunately, "For further study" - it should probably be "studied": http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/com16/area_resp.html Also, in the "Questions under study", there is no mention of IP, and scant reference to the Internet: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/com16/questions-text.html Study Group 13's "Home Page" includes "Lead Study Group on General network aspects, Global Information Infrastructures (GII), Broadband ISDN and IP related aspects.": http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/com13/ Study Group 13's "Questions under study" has several references to IP: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/com13/questions-text.html It would appear that SG16 is involved in "Packet Networks", of which the Internet and IP is but one. A valid question would focus on whether the 21/15 question should restrict itself to IP, or cover packet networks in general. Will their recommendations only apply to SG16 equipment when connected to an IP network? SG16 should not lose sight of the other packet network protocols. How does this concept impact on H.gcp? Douglas At 05:49 1999-03-02 -0800, Callaghan, Robert wrote: >This is an interesting view of the IP world > >SG 16 - speech coding and interworking protocols >SG 13 - lead group on overall IP issues >SG 11 - signaling issues >SG 4 - administration >IETF - sigtran, megaco and iptel Working Groups > >I don't think that this is our view, is it? > >Bob

1 0

Re: H.GCP Audio Call
by Bryan Hill 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

Colleagues, The attached word doc contains my latest pass at H.GCP requirements, terminology and scope for the Thursday call. Please review then in that order, the scope section is still under construction. Regards, Bryan <<HGCPREQ.ZIP>> -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Hill [SMTP:bhill@VIDEOSERVER.COM] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 2:37 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: H.GCP Audio Call Colleagues, I would like to invite you to participate in audio call on Thursday March 4th from 11AM until 1PM EST to discuss H.GCP. The call details are as follows: Calls from outside the US: 312-470-7273 Calls from within the US: 888-847-7598 Passcode: BryanHill Confirmation number: 5193957 Please respond to me directly to reserve a port for this call (where ever possible please try to minimize port requirements by sharing a port with a colleague). The main purpose of this initial call will be to review requirements and terminology for H.GCP which were discussed in Monterey. I have been editing these sections and will make them available on the ptel SG16 ftp site no later than tomorrow 3/2. The second purpose of the call is to identify other areas that need to be discussed in subsequent audio calls. An initial pass of topics is listed below. I would like to solicit volunteers to submit written contribution in each of the areas identified and use these submissions as a basis for discussing topics in future audio calls. In this manner I hope to scope our discussion to specific technical topics and combine the benefits from MDCP and MGCP approaches into H.GCP. 1) Control model a) Controller to gateway associations b) Controller to internal gateway entity associations c) Failover d) Security 2) Connection model a) Controllable entities b) Controllable entity properties 3) Commands a) Types b) Parameters c) Acknowledgement styles/sequencing 4) Messages (i.e.-command packaging) 5) Message Encoding 6) Resource management 7) Scripting/Packages 8) Interface C protocol (Q.931/Q.764) 9) Interface B protocol (Q.931 ) Best Regards, Bryan _________________________________________________________ Bryan Hill VideoServer Inc. (781) 505-2159 <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

1 0

Re: H.GCP Audio Call
by Katrina C. Hopkins 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

Bryan, Please count me in for the audio call on Thursday. Thanks, Katrina "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein __________________________________________ Katrina C. Hopkins 8670 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 USA 301 608-2076 / 301 608-3547 Fax Senior Member Technical Staff Multimedia & Video Standards Bell Atlantic Technology & Engineering From: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com AT INTERNET on 03/01/99 05:22 PM To: KATRINA C. HOPKINS/EMPL/MD/Bell-Atl, ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com AT INTERNET@CCDOMAIN cc: Subject: H.GCP Audio Call Colleagues, I would like to invite you to participate in audio call on Thursday March 4th from 11AM until 1PM EST to discuss H.GCP. The call details are as follows: Calls from outside the US: 312-470-7273 Calls from within the US: 888-847-7598 Passcode: BryanHill Confirmation number: 5193957 Please respond to me directly to reserve a port for this call (where ever possible please try to minimize port requirements by sharing a port with a colleague). The main purpose of this initial call will be to review requirements and terminology for H.GCP which were discussed in Monterey. I have been editing these sections and will make them available on the ptel SG16 ftp site no later than tomorrow 3/2. The second purpose of the call is to identify other areas that need to be discussed in subsequent audio calls. An initial pass of topics is listed below. I would like to solicit volunteers to submit written contribution in each of the areas identified and use these submissions as a basis for discussing topics in future audio calls. In this manner I hope to scope our discussion to specific technical topics and combine the benefits from MDCP and MGCP approaches into H.GCP. 1) Control model a) Controller to gateway associations b) Controller to internal gateway entity associations c) Failover d) Security 2) Connection model a) Controllable entities b) Controllable entity properties 3) Commands a) Types b) Parameters c) Acknowledgement styles/sequencing 4) Messages (i.e.-command packaging) 5) Message Encoding 6) Resource management 7) Scripting/Packages 8) Interface C protocol (Q.931/Q.764) 9) Interface B protocol (Q.931 ) Best Regards, Bryan _________________________________________________________ Bryan Hill VideoServer Inc. (781) 505-2159 <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

1 0

Re: Liaison from ITU Question 21/15
by Callaghan, Robert 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

This is an interesting view of the IP world SG 16 - speech coding and interworking protocols SG 13 - lead group on overall IP issues SG 11 - signaling issues SG 4 - administration IETF - sigtran, megaco and iptel Working Groups I don't think that this is our view, is it? Bob <<q21_text.html>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information & Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Glen Freundlich [mailto:ggf@lucent.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 3:57 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Liaison from ITU Question 21/15 Attached is a liaison statement from Question 21/15, of which Jerry Skene is the rapporteur, sent in response to a liaison from Q14 regarding the text of Q21/15. Mr. Skene's contact information is: Jerry Skene | Tellabs, Inc. Director, | 45085 University Drive International Standards | Ashburn, VA 20147.2745 tel: +1 703 724-7302 | URL: www.tellabs.com fax: +1 703 724-7202 | email:jerry.skene@tellabs.com -- Glen Freundlich ggf(a)lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA

1 0

Re: H.GCP Audio Call
by Ami Amir 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

Bryan, Please count me in. I'll join at 12AM. Ami -----Original Message----- From: Rex Coldren [SMTP:coldrenr@AGCS.COM] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 9:49 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: H.GCP Audio Call Bryan, Good e-mail. Count me in on the call, of course. I will keep your mail around and refer to it in my response to Nortel's proposal. Thanks, Rex Bryan Hill wrote: > > Colleagues, > > I would like to invite you to participate in audio call on Thursday March > 4th from 11AM until 1PM EST to discuss H.GCP. The call details are as > follows: > > Calls from outside the US: 312-470-7273 > Calls from within the US: 888-847-7598 > Passcode: BryanHill > Confirmation number: 5193957 > > Please respond to me directly to reserve a port for this call (where ever > possible please try to minimize port requirements by sharing a port with a > colleague). > > The main purpose of this initial call will be to review requirements and > terminology for H.GCP which were discussed in Monterey. I have been editing > these sections and will make them available on the ptel SG16 ftp site no > later than tomorrow 3/2. The second purpose of the call is to identify > other areas that need to be discussed in subsequent audio calls. An initial > pass of topics is listed below. I would like to solicit volunteers to > submit written contribution in each of the areas identified and use these > submissions as a basis for discussing topics in future audio calls. In this > manner I hope to scope our discussion to specific technical topics and > combine the benefits from MDCP and MGCP approaches into H.GCP. > > 1) Control model > a) Controller to gateway associations > b) Controller to internal gateway entity associations > c) Failover > d) Security > 2) Connection model > a) Controllable entities > b) Controllable entity properties > 3) Commands > a) Types > b) Parameters > c) Acknowledgement styles/sequencing > 4) Messages (i.e.-command packaging) > 5) Message Encoding > 6) Resource management > 7) Scripting/Packages > 8) Interface C protocol (Q.931/Q.764) > 9) Interface B protocol (Q.931 ) > > Best Regards, > Bryan > _________________________________________________________ > Bryan Hill > VideoServer Inc. > (781) 505-2159 > <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

1 0

H.GCP Audio Call
by Bryan Hill 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

Colleagues, I would like to invite you to participate in audio call on Thursday March 4th from 11AM until 1PM EST to discuss H.GCP. The call details are as follows: Calls from outside the US: 312-470-7273 Calls from within the US: 888-847-7598 Passcode: BryanHill Confirmation number: 5193957 Please respond to me directly to reserve a port for this call (where ever possible please try to minimize port requirements by sharing a port with a colleague). The main purpose of this initial call will be to review requirements and terminology for H.GCP which were discussed in Monterey. I have been editing these sections and will make them available on the ptel SG16 ftp site no later than tomorrow 3/2. The second purpose of the call is to identify other areas that need to be discussed in subsequent audio calls. An initial pass of topics is listed below. I would like to solicit volunteers to submit written contribution in each of the areas identified and use these submissions as a basis for discussing topics in future audio calls. In this manner I hope to scope our discussion to specific technical topics and combine the benefits from MDCP and MGCP approaches into H.GCP. 1) Control model a) Controller to gateway associations b) Controller to internal gateway entity associations c) Failover d) Security 2) Connection model a) Controllable entities b) Controllable entity properties 3) Commands a) Types b) Parameters c) Acknowledgement styles/sequencing 4) Messages (i.e.-command packaging) 5) Message Encoding 6) Resource management 7) Scripting/Packages 8) Interface C protocol (Q.931/Q.764) 9) Interface B protocol (Q.931 ) Best Regards, Bryan _________________________________________________________ Bryan Hill VideoServer Inc. (781) 505-2159 <mailto:bhill@videoserver.com>

6 5

Monterey meeting participants
by Sakae OKUBO 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

Dear Q.11-15/16 Monterey meeting participants, For inclusion in the Q.12-14 meeting report (APC-1554), I have edited a list of participants based on Georgia's list. Please take a look at ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Participants.doc or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/Incoming/Participants.doc and advise me if you are not correctly represented. Particularly I am not sure which is the family name for some participants, and which country should be indicated for delegates from multi-national organizations. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0

Use of ftp site
by Sakae OKUBO 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

Dear Mr. Hill, Dear H.GCP collaborators, When you place (or have placed) a document at the /Incoming of PictureTel ftp site, please advise me in any form; directly or indirectly through a message to the mailing list. This is to ensure that all the files in /Incoming are relevant to our ITU-T work. If you expect many working documents for the H.GCP editing, I can make a temporary folder for this purpose (to be deleted after the Santiago meeting). Please advise me if it helps you. The service I can offer will be limited to just moving files from /Incoming to the temporary folder. I fully rely on you for virus free files. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0