- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

FW: VoIP Numbering Plan Vs. Domain names. IPNP
by Tom-PT Taylor 23 Apr '98

23 Apr '98

There was a flurry of discussion on the IPTEL list this morning about VoIP addressing and the like. This message was forwarded as part of the discussion. > SEE Below... Please contact me or Anne Brown <Anne.Brown.arbrown(a)nt.com > <mailto:Anne.Brown.arbrown@nt.com> > of Nortel directly .... your timing > is > excellent. > The IETF AD took 164 resolution off the agenda for IPTEL since they > thought > IPTEL bit off more than it could chew. > > > > To All, > > This correspondence is to invite you to participate in a work group, > April 27, 98 in Anaheim, CA to establish an Internet Telephony Directory > solution and service. Directory is the keystone to scalability and > interconnection of Internet Telephony services. The promise of Internet > Telephony cannot be realized unless there is a serious and realistic > effort to develop and deploy a global trusted Internet Directory scheme > for the Telephony Domain. And this will not happen without the > cooperation > of the major players from the beginning. > At the next Electronic Messaging Association (EMA) meeting, the Internet > Telephony Directory (ITD) Pilot Working Group will discuss solutions for > an ITD framework. A deliverable of the WG will be an Internet draft to > be proposed to the IETF as a standards track RFC. A second deliverable > will > be the establishment of a pilot service, perhaps run by a trusted > third-party. The proposed draft which comes out of EMA will be used to > launch an IETF WG at the next IETF meeting. > You need not be a member of EMA to attend this first WG meeting but you > must > register. Attendance for committee meetings is free. > Besides agreement to work toward a common solution, this WG also requires > commitment form interested parities to contribute and/or prime these > deliverables. Participants should be prepared to discuss deliverables and > should be in a position to go back to their respective companies to > solicit > commitment to work toward a common solution and to commit resources. > The following companies have thus far expressed an interest in this > initiative: > Lucent > Microsoft > Cisco > Intel > VocalTec > Nortel > > Please pass this invitation on to others whom you feel should be involved > in > this work. > This work is being done in the EMA because the ITD problem is 1% > technical and 99% commercial and political. Also the requirement for a > pilot makes it outside the scope of the IETF. The initial Internet draft > proposal and service pilot will be developed via at face-to-face meetings > at > EMA, which supports technical and marketing streams. This work is not > being > done in application specific forums because it is outside of the scope of > voice over IP, Internet fax, voice messaging, vpn, conferencing or other > Internet Telephony applications. > Attached is the WG charter and meeting details. Richard Shockey’s > “Internet > Telephony Domain Service: A Business Case for Action” will also be sent to > this list shortly, along with “ ITD: Overview of the Proposed EMA Pilot > WG”. > Regards, > Anne Brown (Nortel) > ITD Pilot Working Group Chair, EMA > ************************************************************************* > > Charter: Internet Telephony Directory Pilot Working Group > Description: > End-users are faced with a wide variety of telephony applications with > overlapping directory needs. The most common being the ability to locate > address information for a targeted recipient, given only a telephone > number. > The goal of this work effort is to evaluate in a pilot, existing directory > standards-based solutions. > The pilot will provide direct feedback to vendors, service providers, and > standards developers about what approaches are effective and which need to > be changed. The pilot will also provide information to corporations about > how to best plan, deploy and use directories in the telephony area and how > to reduce their costs and risks. > Scope: > Note that this group is not solving routing problems. Nor is it > defining any particular Internet Telephony service. What it will do is > define an ITD framework to support the retrieval of destination address > and > additional service-specific information such as supported capabilities. > Users and applications should not have to know anything but the E.164 > telephone number in order to obtain this information. > The individual directory schemas, which will define which attributes are > used for which Internet Telephony services, are outside the scope of > this WG. Each directory schema will be defined in the group or forum > that is tasked with defining standards for that particular service. For > example, the voice messaging directory schema < > draft-ema-vpimdir-schema-00.txt.> was defined in EMA. The schema for > Internet fax will most likely be defined in the fax working group of the > IETF. > The trial service will allow the exploration of governance and > administration issues. > Deliverables: > An RFC, describing an ITD framework, for proposal as an Internet-Draft for > IETF standards track. > A pilot service, perhaps through tender, to prove the concept and to > address > various issues including: > * Allowing users to administer a single directory structure used by > multiple applications > * Simplified provisioning of shared directories > * Security > > Time frame: > The work group will start in April, 98 and will propose a pilot to be > conducted in the Summer and Fall of 1998 and to be completed by the end > of the year. The RFC final should result, at the end of the year, both > from lessons learned from the pilot and from feedback from the IETF WG. > Q and A: > Below are several relevant questions and answers raised during early > discussions: > Q. Why is the Voice Messaging Committee examining this kind of issue? > A. For the same reason that the EMA was a good place for Voice Messaging > to be moved into the broader messaging framework. The Voice Messaging > Committee will allow participants develop issues specific to > telecommunications and Internet telephony. Once these are better > understood, > the EMA forum will allow discussions between end-users and vendors with a > wide variety of messaging, security, and directory backgrounds. > Q. How is this different from the VPIM directory effort? > A. The VPIM directories effort has developed a schema and a shared > directory pilot focused on voice messaging. VPIM directories are only > one part of the broader Internet telephony and telecommunications > directory picture. This work group would examine directories from a much > broader perspective. > Q. Isn’t this already being done in other telephony groups? > A. There are groups such as the Voice over IP forum and the ???. It is > anticipated that the Voice Messaging Committee will liaise with these > groups and will formulate joint efforts as needed. However, the EMA is a > very good place to start this directory discussion as it applies to > corporations and to issues beyond those related to specific IP protocols. > Q. Who would be participating? > A. Participation is open. It is likely that vendors and service > providers would provide the initial effort to get the pilot defined and > initiated. At that point it is hoped that corporations would participate > in the pilot both as sites and for evaluations, comment and feedback. > Q. What is the Voice Message Committee Charter? > A. The EMA Voice Messaging Committee facilitates the integration of voice, > telephony, and CTI with other messaging media. This Committee will > address > the enhanced interoperability of voice based applications by building > consensus and encouraging standards for voice based platforms. This > committee will also represent the voice and telephony technology issues in > the general work of the EMA. > > ***************************** > Meeting Details > Monday, April 27, 98 > Time to be announced. > You need not be a member of EMA to attend this first WG meeting. > Meeting Details: > Anaheim Marriott > Orange County Ballroom, Salons 1-4 > Anaheim, CA > > The Anaheim Marriott is across the street from the Anaheim Hilton and the > Anaheim Convention Center—site of EMA’98. > Committee meeting attendance is FREE to employees of EMA member > companies, but you must reserve your place by returning the Committee > registration form <http://www.ema.org/html/at_work/committe/regform.htm > <http://www.ema.org/html/at_work/committe/regform.htm> > > to EMA by Monday, April 20 to ensure that you can participate. Please > Note: > Committee meeting registration is completely separate from EMA’98 > registration. > For more details see < > http://www.ema.org/html/at_work/committe/cwgmeet.htm> > <http://www.ema.org/html/at_work/committe/cwgmeet.htm>> . > For more information about EMA Committees, see < http://www.ema.org/ > <http://www.ema.org/> > or > contact: > Paul Moniz, Vice President, > (Tel. 703/524-5550 x. 231 or Internet: paul.moniz(a)ema.org > <mailto:paul.moniz@ema.org> , X.400: G=paul; S=moniz; O=ema; A=mci; C=us) > Electronic Messaging Association > 1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 500 > Arlington, VA 22209 > T: 703/524-5550 F: 703/524-5558 > > > ####################### > > > Internet Telephony Domain Service > A Business Case for Action > April 1, 1998 > > > Richard Shockey > 8045 Big Bend Blvd > Suite 110 > St. Louis, MO > Voice 314.918.9020 > Fax 314.918.9015 > Mail rshockey(a)ix.netcom.com <mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com> > > > > > > Historical Introduction > Over the past several years it has been manifestly self evident that > traditional telephony applications such as voice and fax can be > transported > over public and private packet routed networks [The Internet] in parallel > to > the General Switched Telephone Network [GSTN]. Hundreds of new products > and > services have been developed and introduced to make Internet Telephony a > reality. Tens of millions of dollars in Research and Development funds > have > been spent by technology companies creating a comprehensive suite of > standards and processes to enable wide spread deployment. > The promise of Internet Telephony cannot be realized unless there is a > serious and realistic effort to develop and deploy a global trusted > Internet > Directory scheme for the Telephony Domain. > Internet Telephony must be made as transparent and as easy to use as > traditional analog phone calling. Internet Telephony must be able to > promise advanced services, such as video and not just toll avoidance > As it stands now there is no practical method by which a individual can > place a Internet Telephone Call using a GSTN phone number that crosses > Internet domains. Internet Telephony cannot scale on either a wide area or > global basis. > Major corporations and institutions have spent billions of dollars > deploying > TCP/IP networks for both internal and wide area applications. Major > service > providers including current ILEC’s and CLEC’s and PTT authorities are > looking to deploy advanced service offerings based on TCP/IP networking. > There is a strong desire to optimize the return on investment on these > networks as well as provide advanced communications services currently > unavailable on analog based GSTN networks. The Problem... > With all of the work that has been done in developing standards and > interoperability processes within the Internet Telephony industry a major > problem has been left undone. > How do you locate an Internet Telephony user and identify what resources > are > available to that user? > Telephony addressing has always been numeric in nature, unlike Internet > applications which rely on easy to understand and remember character based > names, such as www.telephony.com <http://www.telephony.com> . Internet > applications have always relied on PC or other terminals that have 101 > character keyboards or other similar devices. > There are literally hundreds of millions of “terminals”, namely telephone > key sets that do not have keyboards. There should be a way to > transparently > permit these devices to access IP related services, principally real time > voice, fax or video like services. > This author is reminded of the famous scene in the movie 2001 where the > director of the space agency Heywood Floyd, while stopping over on the > space > station places a video phone call to his family. He used nothing more that > a > traditional 12 button telephone key pad to complete the call. Why not > make > these services available NOW! > > All of technical pieces of the puzzle are in place except one. > The Market > It should be noted that some estimates by NationsBanc Montgomery > Securities > and the Frost and Sullivan research firm have indicated the IP telephony > market place could grow to 2.5 billion dollars within 3 years. This is a > substantial number, even though technology industry market research is > notoriously suspect. > This potential market could be impaired if Internet Telephony is not made > as > simple and transparent to use as traditional telephony. > It is useful to note again that Internet Telephony is not just about toll > avoidance. There will be toll savings to institutions and enterprises over > the short term, however it is the ability to deliver advanced telephony > services such as video, color fax or easy to set up conference calling > that > is the ultimate goal of this technology as well as unify the management of > networks across the enterprise. > The Solution > A system must be devised to allow any Internet Telephony Application > [Voice. > Fax, Video, etc] application to “resolve” the address of the Internet > Telephony user or resource using nothing more that a GSTN number to place > the call. > This requirement demands that an independent trusted 3rd party Internet > Telephony Directory Service [IDTS] must be developed, deployed and > maintained to service the upper level infrastructure of telephony related > applications. > There are several possible approaches to the problem including LDAP/X.500 > and DNS. > What is lacking is the specific plan to achieve a solution and the > commitment of major industry players to deploy a working experiment. It > is > the opinion of this author that of all the possible approaches, the > technology of the existing DNS system offers a proven and scaleable > solution. > What the Solution is NOT! > Many attempts and proposals have been made over the past several years to > look at Internet Directory services, IMHO these proposals have been much > too > expansive in scope. They have attempted to “End World Hunger”, so to > speak. > They have not focused on the specific needs of a single application such > as > telephony. > > ] > The ITDS is not a “Universal Telephony Directory Assistance” or “White > Pages”. It is nothing more and nothing less than a method to resolve the > “telephony service address” and discover user capabilities based on the > knowledge of a GSTN number. > For instance: > 13149189020 resolves to > gate.domain.com and/or ldap.domain.com or > john.smith(a)domain.com <mailto:john.smith@domain.com> . > The use of LDAP in this example could offer real time telephony > applications > the OPTION of sending an SMTP voice-fax-video message or set up a session > based service. > Comprehensive directory services raise serious questions of individual > privacy and security that must be taken into account in the selection of > any > technology that addresses this problem. Issues of interoperability or > settlements among providers are considered out of scope for this proposal. > The Task > In order to preserve ,protect and defend the investments the technology > industry has made in Internet Telephony, advance the state of the art and > grow the market for these services, collective action must be taken now to > develop ITDS. > It is the belief of this author that the effort must be based on the > common > agreements of several select companies with serious economic interests in > this area. Only those companies with significant financial and personnel > resources to commit to the task should be directly involved in the early > stages of development. > Significant questions must be sorted out. Agreement and concessions by > known competitors will have to be made. > The Organization > Decisions need to be made quickly on what should be the proper “home” for > such a effort. There are many alternatives. Clearly standards work would > proceed through traditional venues such as the IETF or ITU. Actual > sponsorship of a experimental ITDS root system might be though an > organization such as the EMA but for practical as well as legal matters > it > is suggested that 2 not for profit legal entities be set up. One in > Canada > and one in the United States to share responsibility for an experimental > server system and eventually take over the responsibility of > administration > for a ITDS for the North American Numbering Plan area [ 1 ] It would be > anticipated that entities wishing to participate in the experimental > servers > system would manage numbers within their own national country codes or > zones > [Britain - 44, Japan -77, etc] > The Politics > There should be no illusion in any ones mind that this effort, especially > if > it is supported by major industry participants will immediately come under > public and political scrutiny by the technology industry and governments. > The establishment of, for that matter, even the suggestion of an effort to > establish of any form or alternative application specific root system on > the > Internet carries risk. It should be noted that there continues to be a > legal > and technical uproar that surrounding the Top Level Domain administration > of > the Internet and the administration of .COM by Network Solutions, Inc. > under > its contract to the National Science Foundation by the authority on the > IANA. > Should the task of setting up a experimental ITDS be successful it will be > inevitable that the developers of such a system seek ...indeed demand some > form of legal sanction from appropriate regulatory authorities. It is the > opinion of this author that the eventual settlement of the tldDNS issue > may > provide an appropriate model to recommend for long term ITDS governance as > well. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey > 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 > St. Louis, MO 63119 > Voice 314.918.9020 > Fax 314.918.9015 > INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@i <mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com> > x.netcom.com > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > --------- > This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

1 0

Fwd: sourceInfo in H.225.0 Setup message
by Chris Purvis WVdevmt-WS 23 Apr '98

23 Apr '98

All, I'm resending this (originally sent it to the h323 implementors list) and forwarding it additionally to other people in the hope of getting a reply! If anybody is using this field for anything at all, PLEASE tell me what you want in it! My apologies to those on multiple lists, who will receive this multiple times, but I could really do with some responses and didn't get any from the obvious list! Chris ------------------------------------- All, What purpose do the sourceInfo and destinationInfo fields have in H.225.0 messages such as Setup and Alerting? The description in H.225.0 says that it "contains an EndpointType to allow the called party to determine whether the call involves a gateway or not". The specific questions that arise are: 1) What difference does it make? Why does anybody care whether there's a gateway in the call? 2) What information do vendors intend to supply in any of the gatewayInfo, terminalInfo or mcuInfo fields in the EndpointType? I note that only the gatewayInfo field has standard parameters defined, which allows you to specify what protocol you're gatewaying to. Whilst this might be useful information to supply in registrations with a gatekeeper, how does it help an endpoint in the call signalling phase? 3) What is the "correct" procedure for a gatekeeper that is routing these messages (or a proxy, come to that)? Should it a) Pass these fields through unchanged? b) Put in its own information instead of what's already there? (i.e. build a new EndpointType element with GatekeeperInfo supplied and filling in the vendor field with vendor information for the gatekeeper) or c) Add its own information to what has already been supplied? Note that, bearing in mind that the call may easily be routed by two gatekeepers - even without any enhancements to interGK communication - this means that only information from the destination endpoint's gatekeeper will be present? Again, should the vendor information within the EndpointType SEQUENCE be that of the GK, or whatever was supplied by the original calling entity? Chris ---------------------------------------- Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. Phone:+44 1753 661359 email: cpurvis(a)madge.com

1 0

Photos of Yokosuka Meeting
by Hidenobu Harasaki 23 Apr '98

23 Apr '98

Dear Yokosuka meeting participants, and Mr. Webber, I have uploaded pictures.tar to avc-site/Incoming. The file contains 55 shots taken by a digital camera at Yokosuka Rapporteur meeting site and welcome party restaurant. Mr. Webber, would you please extract pictures from the tar archive? Mr. Campos-Neto, "conference.jpg" is the shot that you requested. The shot shows how we set up 10Base-T hubs in a meeting room. Best regards, Hidenobu Harasaki harasaki(a)ccm.CL.nec.co.jp Principal Researcher C&C Media Research Labs., NEC Corporation Phone: +81 44 856 8083 Fax: +81 44 856 2232

2 1

PLEASE REVIEW: meeting report Q13, revised TD-14, TD-15 upload to ftp site
by Dale L. Skran 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

Yokosuka meeting attendees: I have just uploaded to the incoming directory of ftp site the following documents: td-14-sg8-annxB-liaision-v2-chgs-accepted.doc the doc below with changes accepted td-14-sg8-annxB-liaision-v2.doc change marks showing changes discussed on the final day of the meeting td-15-revised-chgs-accep-323 annex D.doc the doc below with changes accepted td-15-revised-323 annex D.doc change marks showing changes discussed on the final day of the meeting td-17-yokosuka-v2.doc revised Q13 meeting notes with change marks Please review all these documents and send your comments to the mailing list. I would like to finalize the meeting report this week, and recall that we have a May 11 white paper deadline for H.323 Annex D. URGENT ISSUE: In the meeting report, I note a problem with forward references in T.38 Annex B to H.245 version 5 (and also in H.323 Annex D even if it was delayed). As you recall, at the meeting we decided to move the T.38 related changes from V4 to V5; I believe that this was over-hasty and that the changes should go in the H.245 V4 white paper. Comments? Dale Skran Q13 Rapporteur

2 1

add to list
by Randy Pope 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

Randy_Pope(a)stg.sel.sony.com

2 1

(no subject)
by Liang Jun Ming 19 Apr '98

19 Apr '98

I'm a student of FuDan University,Shanghai,China. I want to get some information and application on T.105(SBV Application Layer Protocol and BIS). Could you give me some advice? I appreciate for your lift!

1 0

Documentation of the Yokosuka meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 18 Apr '98

18 Apr '98

Dear Q.12-14 colleagues, All the APC-numbered documents and Temporary Documents are now avialable at ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9804_Yok/. 9804_Yok.html is their index. Please note, however, that some output TDs such as meeting report of each Question need be revised to incorporate the discussion at the closing session last Friday. They will be uploaded with indication such as r, r1, ... Please also note that APC-1372 will be the integrated meeting report assembling TD-24(general), TD-16(Q.12), TD-17(Q.13), TD-18(Q.14). Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) ******************************************************************** Graphics Communication Laboratories Phone: +81 3 5351 0181 6F ANNEX TOSHIN BLDG. Fax: +81 3 5351 0184 4-36-19 Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo e-mail: okubo(a)gctech.co.jp 151-0053 Japan or okubo(a)mxz.meshnet.or.jp ********************************************************************

1 0

June meeting date
by Joerg Ott 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

Toby, TD-1 of this meeting specifies 8-11 June in Cannes. I haven't heard anything during this week that this should change (again). Joerg At 12:32 15.04.98 -0700, you wrote: >Do we have definite dates and location for the June Q12-14 meeting? > > -- Toby >___________________________________________________________ >Toby L. Nixon, Senior Business Development Manager >Microsoft Corporation, ICU - OEM & SI Group >One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA >+1 (425) 936-2792 Fax: +1 (425) 936-7329 >mailto:tnixon@microsoft.com > >

1 0

Re[2]: Far-end camera control for H.323
by Roni Even 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

Vineet, In H.281 each new message is replacing the previous one if it came from the same source with the same action. If you send a start pan right with timeout 300msec and the next message is continue the same action for 100 msec, the receiver upon getting the continue message restart the timer. Regards Roni Even _______________________ Reply Separator _______________________ Subject: Re: Far-end camera control for H.323 Author: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> at internet Date: 15/4/98 9:37 I agree that Acks are not needed and we should not try to over-engineer. But there needs to be a mechanism so that the user can stop the camera motion within a reasonable time after issuing STOP. This can be accomplished by having the receiver (one with the camera) look-ahead for STOP messages in its receive buffer. When it sees the STOP message it should ignore any CONTINUE messsages in its buffer which are ahead of the STOP. What I have described above is not something to be standarized but we could include it as a guidance to the implementors. vineet ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Far-end camera control for H.323 Author: Dave Lindbergh [SMTP:lindbergh@itu.ch] at MSXGATE Date: 4/14/98 11:58 PM Dear SG16 colleagues, Just to repeat and amplify our Yokosuka comments on APC-1356 (Intel) and APC-1366 (Accord) regarding Far End Camera Control (FECC) for H.323: In general, PictureTel supports the idea of basing H.323 FECC on H.281. We think the following points are important: 1) A general goal should be that H.323 FECC should be interoperable via a gateway with H.281-based FECC on H.320 systems (note that H.324 also uses H.281 FECC) 2) H.281 should be sent over UDP as a separate media stream, and not over TCP (such as H.245). We believe that H.281 must be transported using techniques suitable for a media stream, thus preserving the real-time relationships between control activation, hold, and deactivation which are represented by the H.281 Start, Continue, and Stop messages. 3) Any solution must address capability exchange including which endpoints have controllable cameras, how many cameras, what controls are available (pan, tilt, zoom, focus, etc.), preset positions available, etc. The existing H.281 system uses H.224 for capability exchanges of this sort. One solution would be to perform a similar function using H.245 cap exchange. Another would be to simply encapsulate the entire H.224/H.281 stack within a UDP media stream (this would simplify gateways). 4) Any solution must address multipoint use. One possibility is to adopt a solution similar to V.CHAT/T.CHAT: A simple H.281 UDP encapsulation for point-to-point use, and a very simple T.120 "wrapper" around H.281 for multipoint use. Note that the T.120 could reside either in endpoints or be proxied from the point-to-point mode at the MC. 5) To improve reliability on congested networks, rather than using TCP, redundant transmission of H.281 messages via UDP might be used. 6) To support future applications such as machine-driven pointing and operation on highly congested networks, the H.281 message set should be extended to add new absolute and/or relative positioning commands (probably in units of field of view rather than angular units). Long-term, a migration to these new commands could occur, while retaining compatibility with the existing H.281 start/stop motion model. 7) We are unsure how adding ACKs to Start/Continue/Stop messages (as suggested by Intel) is helpful. --Dave Lindbergh, PictureTel ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lindbergh Email: lindbergh(a)pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Voice: +1 978 623 4351 100 Minuteman Road - M/S 635 Fax: +1 978 749 2804 Andover MA 01810 USA H.320 video by arrangement PGP fingerprint: C8 3E 28 69 53 0A 4B 87 EF E0 11 CD AC 87 4D CD -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Far-end camera control for H.323
by Toby Nixon 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

Do we have definite dates and location for the June Q12-14 meeting? -- Toby ___________________________________________________________ Toby L. Nixon, Senior Business Development Manager Microsoft Corporation, ICU - OEM & SI Group One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA +1 (425) 936-2792 Fax: +1 (425) 936-7329 mailto:tnixon@microsoft.com

1 0

Re: Far-end camera control for H.323
by Kumar, Vineet 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

I agree that Acks are not needed and we should not try to over-engineer. But there needs to be a mechanism so that the user can stop the camera motion within a reasonable time after issuing STOP. This can be accomplished by having the receiver (one with the camera) look-ahead for STOP messages in its receive buffer. When it sees the STOP message it should ignore any CONTINUE messsages in its buffer which are ahead of the STOP. What I have described above is not something to be standarized but we could include it as a guidance to the implementors. vineet ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Far-end camera control for H.323 Author: Dave Lindbergh [SMTP:lindbergh@itu.ch] at MSXGATE Date: 4/14/98 11:58 PM Dear SG16 colleagues, Just to repeat and amplify our Yokosuka comments on APC-1356 (Intel) and APC-1366 (Accord) regarding Far End Camera Control (FECC) for H.323: In general, PictureTel supports the idea of basing H.323 FECC on H.281. We think the following points are important: 1) A general goal should be that H.323 FECC should be interoperable via a gateway with H.281-based FECC on H.320 systems (note that H.324 also uses H.281 FECC) 2) H.281 should be sent over UDP as a separate media stream, and not over TCP (such as H.245). We believe that H.281 must be transported using techniques suitable for a media stream, thus preserving the real-time relationships between control activation, hold, and deactivation which are represented by the H.281 Start, Continue, and Stop messages. 3) Any solution must address capability exchange including which endpoints have controllable cameras, how many cameras, what controls are available (pan, tilt, zoom, focus, etc.), preset positions available, etc. The existing H.281 system uses H.224 for capability exchanges of this sort. One solution would be to perform a similar function using H.245 cap exchange. Another would be to simply encapsulate the entire H.224/H.281 stack within a UDP media stream (this would simplify gateways). 4) Any solution must address multipoint use. One possibility is to adopt a solution similar to V.CHAT/T.CHAT: A simple H.281 UDP encapsulation for point-to-point use, and a very simple T.120 "wrapper" around H.281 for multipoint use. Note that the T.120 could reside either in endpoints or be proxied from the point-to-point mode at the MC. 5) To improve reliability on congested networks, rather than using TCP, redundant transmission of H.281 messages via UDP might be used. 6) To support future applications such as machine-driven pointing and operation on highly congested networks, the H.281 message set should be extended to add new absolute and/or relative positioning commands (probably in units of field of view rather than angular units). Long-term, a migration to these new commands could occur, while retaining compatibility with the existing H.281 start/stop motion model. 7) We are unsure how adding ACKs to Start/Continue/Stop messages (as suggested by Intel) is helpful. --Dave Lindbergh, PictureTel ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lindbergh Email: lindbergh(a)pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Voice: +1 978 623 4351 100 Minuteman Road - M/S 635 Fax: +1 978 749 2804 Andover MA 01810 USA H.320 video by arrangement PGP fingerprint: C8 3E 28 69 53 0A 4B 87 EF E0 11 CD AC 87 4D CD -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Far-end camera control for H.323
by Roni Even 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

Dear SG16 Colleagues, I read Dave Lindbergh's comments and found them important in order to go on with a solution for FECC. Following are my remarks to the points below. 1. I agree with this point. 2. I want to mention that if we are going to use one TCP connection for multiple calls ( See Lucent's APC) than there may be a problem with real time in the H.245 channel. Like my APC mentioned I think that both ways will work. 3. If a UDP channel is the solution than we can use the open logical channel ack message to send the FECC capabilities (see APC-1366). 4. In a multipoint environment using a UDP solution we can open this channel directly between the end points that want to have an FECC session. The exception will be in centralised conferences or centralised video conferences. We can add a "chair control" service requiring the end point who wants to start an FECC session to ask permission from the active MC. 5. OK 6. There was an APC from IBM for h.281 in the past addressing this issue. 7. I agree that ACKs is not needed. If a UDP solution is what we are going to do, does it mean that we need a new h.xxx. Roni Even Accord Video Telecommunication. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Far-end camera control for H.323 Author: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> at internet Date: 4/15/98 2:58 AM Dear SG16 colleagues, Just to repeat and amplify our Yokosuka comments on APC-1356 (Intel) and APC-1366 (Accord) regarding Far End Camera Control (FECC) for H.323: In general, PictureTel supports the idea of basing H.323 FECC on H.281. We think the following points are important: 1) A general goal should be that H.323 FECC should be interoperable via a gateway with H.281-based FECC on H.320 systems (note that H.324 also uses H.281 FECC) 2) H.281 should be sent over UDP as a separate media stream, and not over TCP (such as H.245). We believe that H.281 must be transported using techniques suitable for a media stream, thus preserving the real-time relationships between control activation, hold, and deactivation which are represented by the H.281 Start, Continue, and Stop messages. 3) Any solution must address capability exchange including which endpoints have controllable cameras, how many cameras, what controls are available (pan, tilt, zoom, focus, etc.), preset positions available, etc. The existing H.281 system uses H.224 for capability exchanges of this sort. One solution would be to perform a similar function using H.245 cap exchange. Another would be to simply encapsulate the entire H.224/H.281 stack within a UDP media stream (this would simplify gateways). 4) Any solution must address multipoint use. One possibility is to adopt a solution similar to V.CHAT/T.CHAT: A simple H.281 UDP encapsulation for point-to-point use, and a very simple T.120 "wrapper" around H.281 for multipoint use. Note that the T.120 could reside either in endpoints or be proxied from the point-to-point mode at the MC. 5) To improve reliability on congested networks, rather than using TCP, redundant transmission of H.281 messages via UDP might be used. 6) To support future applications such as machine-driven pointing and operation on highly congested networks, the H.281 message set should be extended to add new absolute and/or relative positioning commands (probably in units of field of view rather than angular units). Long-term, a migration to these new commands could occur, while retaining compatibility with the existing H.281 start/stop motion model. 7) We are unsure how adding ACKs to Start/Continue/Stop messages (as suggested by Intel) is helpful. --Dave Lindbergh, PictureTel ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lindbergh Email: lindbergh(a)pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Voice: +1 978 623 4351 100 Minuteman Road - M/S 635 Fax: +1 978 749 2804 Andover MA 01810 USA H.320 video by arrangement PGP fingerprint: C8 3E 28 69 53 0A 4B 87 EF E0 11 CD AC 87 4D CD -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Far-end camera control for H.323
by Dave Lindbergh 15 Apr '98

15 Apr '98

Dear SG16 colleagues, Just to repeat and amplify our Yokosuka comments on APC-1356 (Intel) and APC-1366 (Accord) regarding Far End Camera Control (FECC) for H.323: In general, PictureTel supports the idea of basing H.323 FECC on H.281. We think the following points are important: 1) A general goal should be that H.323 FECC should be interoperable via a gateway with H.281-based FECC on H.320 systems (note that H.324 also uses H.281 FECC) 2) H.281 should be sent over UDP as a separate media stream, and not over TCP (such as H.245). We believe that H.281 must be transported using techniques suitable for a media stream, thus preserving the real-time relationships between control activation, hold, and deactivation which are represented by the H.281 Start, Continue, and Stop messages. 3) Any solution must address capability exchange including which endpoints have controllable cameras, how many cameras, what controls are available (pan, tilt, zoom, focus, etc.), preset positions available, etc. The existing H.281 system uses H.224 for capability exchanges of this sort. One solution would be to perform a similar function using H.245 cap exchange. Another would be to simply encapsulate the entire H.224/H.281 stack within a UDP media stream (this would simplify gateways). 4) Any solution must address multipoint use. One possibility is to adopt a solution similar to V.CHAT/T.CHAT: A simple H.281 UDP encapsulation for point-to-point use, and a very simple T.120 "wrapper" around H.281 for multipoint use. Note that the T.120 could reside either in endpoints or be proxied from the point-to-point mode at the MC. 5) To improve reliability on congested networks, rather than using TCP, redundant transmission of H.281 messages via UDP might be used. 6) To support future applications such as machine-driven pointing and operation on highly congested networks, the H.281 message set should be extended to add new absolute and/or relative positioning commands (probably in units of field of view rather than angular units). Long-term, a migration to these new commands could occur, while retaining compatibility with the existing H.281 start/stop motion model. 7) We are unsure how adding ACKs to Start/Continue/Stop messages (as suggested by Intel) is helpful. --Dave Lindbergh, PictureTel ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lindbergh Email: lindbergh(a)pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Voice: +1 978 623 4351 100 Minuteman Road - M/S 635 Fax: +1 978 749 2804 Andover MA 01810 USA H.320 video by arrangement PGP fingerprint: C8 3E 28 69 53 0A 4B 87 EF E0 11 CD AC 87 4D CD -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

APC-1359
by Kiyoshi SAKAI 12 Apr '98

12 Apr '98

Dear Mr. Okubo and Q.12-14 colleagues, I have uploaded the following file to the "avc-site/Incoming" directory; apc-1359.zip: Proposed addition to H.245 for the AAL1/5 conversion gateway capabilities The zip-file contains a Word95/6.0(US version) compatible document. I'm very sorry for very late submission. Regards, ********************************************************************** Kiyoshi Sakai Media Processing Laboratory Multimedia Systems Labs. FUJITSU LABORATORIES LTD. Tel. : +81 44 754 2679 Fax. : +81 44 754 2347 E-mail : sakai(a)flab.fujitsu.co.jp **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: request for APC numbers
by Sakae OKUBO 12 Apr '98

12 Apr '98

Dear Dale, In response to your request, APC-1368 has been allocated to your contribution as attached. Many apologies for my losing your original request dated 3 April Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) ******************************************************************** Graphics Communication Laboratories Phone: +81 3 5351 0181 6F ANNEX TOSHIN BLDG. Fax: +81 3 5351 0184 4-36-19 Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo e-mail: okubo(a)gctech.co.jp 151-0053 Japan or okubo(a)mxz.meshnet.or.jp ******************************************************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APC- Source Provisional Title ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1328 Siemens Proposal for Call Hold Supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Hold) 1329 Siemens Proposal for Call Park/Call Pickup supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Park+Pickup) 1330 Siemens Proposal for Call Waiting Supplementary Service H.323 (H.450.CallWaiting) 1331 RADVision A proposal for RTP/RTCP addresses use during the Fast Connect Procedure 1332 RADVision Remarks on H.225.0 1333 Editor Drat Amendment 5 to H.222.0 1334 Editor Draft Annex I to H.225.0 1335 Editor Darft H.245 V4 1336 Editor Darft H.310 V2 1337 Editor Draft H.bmultipoint 1338 Editor Draft Annex D to H.323 1339 PictureTel Proposals and General Comments for H.323 Annex C 1340 Mitel Message Waiting Indication Supplementary Service in H.323 1341 3Com, Ascend, Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom, GPT, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Post & Telecom Austria (PTA), Siements, VocalTec Inter-Gatekeeper Communication Requirements (H.323 Annex G) 1342 ETSI Communication from EP TIPHON to ITU SG16 on Codec support for H.323 1343 MPEG Liaison response regarding DMIF 1344 Editor H.246 Work Plan and Discussion 1345 VideoServer/Intel Proposal for H.MediaMIB 1346 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 Call Signalling MIB 1347 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 RAS MIB 1348 VideoServer Proposal for H.245 MIB 1349 Cisco Proposal for H.323 Gatekeeper MIB 1350 VideoServer Proposal for H.323 Terminal MIB 1351 multiple Faster connect for H.323 terminals 1352 Editor Draft H.323 v2 Implementers Guide 1353 Intel Proposals and general comments for Inter-Gatekeeper Communications 1354 IBM Comment to the current H.323 endpoint registration procedure 1355 IBM Coding of the MultipointCapabilitys within the H2250Capability data structure 1356 Intel Proposal for Real Time Device Control in H.323 1357 NTT DoCoMo The support of MPEG-4 video in H.324 terminals 1358 Secretary of Meeting Host Organization Network configuration of Yokosuka Rapporteur Meeting 1359 Fujitsu Proposed addition to H.245 for the AAL1/5 conversion gateway capabilities 1360 RADVision Comments on H.235: H.323 Procedures 1361 RADVision GK's role in up-to-date H.323 architecture 1362 Editor Corrections to Decided H.225.0 V2 1363 Lucent H.225 Signaling Enhancements 1364 Madge Networks Comment on the current limitations in H.225.0 v2 for signalling call setup parameters for an outgoing SCN call 1365 VTEL A MIB for audiovisual communication terminals 1366 Accord Real Time Device Control in H.323 1367 TELES Outline of H.323 Usage for Terminals with Fixed Capabilities 1368 Ascend Supporting Multiple Calls on a single TCP link between GW and GK -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Contributions for the Yokosuka meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 11 Apr '98

11 Apr '98

Dear Q.112-14 colleagues, So far I have listed from APC-1328 to 1366 as contributions to the Yokosuka meeting as attached. The following are yet to be uploaded. APC-1338 APC-1344 APC-1345 APC-1350 APC-1351 APC-1359 APC-1365 As we lost another incoming mails during 16:00 Thursay - 10:00 Friday (Tokyo time) without advising the sender, I may have missed your important messages. Please send them again to me if any. Many apologies about this. To those who are coming to Yokosuka, I wish you safe trips. See you next week. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) ******************************************************************** Graphics Communication Laboratories Phone: +81 3 5351 0181 6F ANNEX TOSHIN BLDG. Fax: +81 3 5351 0184 4-36-19 Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo e-mail: okubo(a)gctech.co.jp 151-0053 Japan or okubo(a)mxz.meshnet.or.jp ******************************************************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APC- Source Provisional Title ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1328 Siemens Proposal for Call Hold Supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Hold) 1329 Siemens Proposal for Call Park/Call Pickup supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Park+Pickup) 1330 Siemens Proposal for Call Waiting Supplementary Service H.323 (H.450.CallWaiting) 1331 RADVision A proposal for RTP/RTCP addresses use during the Fast Connect Procedure 1332 RADVision Remarks on H.225.0 1333 Editor Drat Amendment 5 to H.222.0 1334 Editor Draft Annex I to H.225.0 1335 Editor Darft H.245 V4 1336 Editor Darft H.310 V2 1337 Editor Draft H.bmultipoint 1338 Editor Draft Annex D to H.323 1339 PictureTel Proposals and General Comments for H.323 Annex C 1340 Mitel Message Waiting Indication Supplementary Service in H.323 1341 3Com, Ascend, Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom, GPT, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Post & Telecom Austria (PTA), Siements, VocalTec Inter-Gatekeeper Communication Requirements (H.323 Annex G) 1342 ETSI Communication from EP TIPHON to ITU SG16 on Codec support for H.323 1343 MPEG Liaison response regarding DMIF 1344 Editor H.246 Work Plan and Discussion 1345 VideoServer/Intel Proposal for H.MediaMIB 1346 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 Call Signalling MIB 1347 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 RAS MIB 1348 VideoServer Proposal for H.245 MIB 1349 Cisco Proposal for H.323 Gatekeeper MIB 1350 VideoServer Proposal for H.323 Terminal MIB 1351 multiple Faster connect for H.323 terminals 1352 Editor Draft H.323 v2 Implementers Guide 1353 Intel Proposals and general comments for Inter-Gatekeeper Communications 1354 IBM Comment to the current H.323 endpoint registration procedure 1355 IBM Coding of the MultipointCapabilitys within the H2250Capability data structure 1356 Intel Proposal for Real Time Device Control in H.323 1357 NTT DoCoMo The support of MPEG-4 video in H.324 terminals 1358 Secretary of Meeting Host Organization Network configuration of Yokosuka Rapporteur Meeting 1359 Fujitsu Proposed addition to H.245 for the AAL1/5 conversion gateway capabilities 1360 RADVision Comments on H.235: H.323 Procedures 1361 RADVision GK's role in up-to-date H.323 architecture 1362 Editor Corrections to Decided H.225.0 V2 1363 Lucent H.225 Signaling Enhancements 1364 Madge Networks Comment on the current limitations in H.225.0 v2 for signalling call setup parameters for an outgoing SCN call 1365 VTEL A MIB for audiovisual communication terminals 1366 Accord Real Time Device Control in H.323 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

address for subscription
by David Bukovinsky 10 Apr '98

10 Apr '98

Sorry for sending this out on this list - can someone send me the email address of the server, and the appropriate message body, to subscribe to the ITU list? thanks, and apologies for sending this out in this forum. --dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Dave Bukovinsky d.bukovinsky(a)cablelabs.com Project Director, Software Architectures (303) 661-3862 CableLabs, Inc.

1 0

uploaded documents
by George Kajos 10 Apr '98

10 Apr '98

Hello folks, I have uploaded apc1345a.zip, apc-1346.zip, apc-1347.zip, apc-1348.zip, and apc-1349.zip. Mr. Webber please delete apc-1345.zip from the incoming directory in favor of apc1345a.zip. Thank you, George Kajos

1 0

APC-1330 uploaded
by Markku Korpi 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

All, I have uploaded the contribution APC-1330 on Call Waiting supplementary service to the PictureTel incoming site (It is in Word 8.0/'97 format) Regards Markku Korpi ------------ Markku Korpi Siemens, 4900 Old Ironsides Dr., P.O.Box 58075, Santa Clara CA 95054 Phone: +1 408 492 7328, E-mail: korpim(a)sbs.de

1 0

APCs 1331, 1332, 1360, 1361
by Orit Levin 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

Dear Mr. Okubo! I have uploaded the following APCs to the Incoming Directory: 1331 RADVision A proposal for RTP/RTCP addresses use during the Fast Connect Procedure 1332 RADVision Remarks on H.225.0 1360 RADVision H.235: Comments on H.323 Procedures 1361 RADVision GK's role in up-to-date H.323 architecture Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc., Mahwah, NJ Tel: 201-529-4300 ext. 230 Fax: 201-529-3516 E Mail: orit(a)radvision.com

1 0

APC-1340 MWI Supplementary Service for H.323
by Dave Walker 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

Dear Colleagues, I have uploaded APC-1340, Message Waiting Indication Supplementary Service in H.323, to standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming. Regards, Dave Walker. -- D. R. Walker Mitel Corp, Kanata, ON, CANADA email: dave_walker(a)mitel.com phone: (613) 592-2122 x1613

1 0

APC-1364 uploaded
by Michele Bozier WVdevmt-WS 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

All, I have uploaded APC-1364 - " Comment on the current limitations in H.225.0 v2 for signalling call setup parameters for an outgoing SCN call" to the ftp server. Regards Michele Bozier ---------------------------------------- Michele Bozier Principal Development Engineer Madge Networks, Wexham Springs, Framewood Rd, Wexham, Slough SL3 6PJ, England Tel: +44(0)1753 661331 Fax: +44(0)1753 661011 email:mbozier@madge.com

1 0

Re: request for apc number
by Sakae OKUBO 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

Dear Roni Even, In response to your requests, APC-1366 has been allocated to your contribution as attached. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) ******************************************************************** Graphics Communication Laboratories Phone: +81 3 5351 0181 6F ANNEX TOSHIN BLDG. Fax: +81 3 5351 0184 4-36-19 Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo e-mail: okubo(a)gctech.co.jp 151-0053 Japan or okubo(a)mxz.meshnet.or.jp ******************************************************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APC- Source Provisional Title ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1328 Siemens Proposal for Call Hold Supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Hold) 1329 Siemens Proposal for Call Park/Call Pickup supplementary service in H.323 (H.450.Park+Pickup) 1330 Siemens Proposal for Call Waiting Supplementary Service H.323 (H.450.CallWaiting) 1331 RADVision A proposal for RTP/RTCP addresses use during the Fast Connect Procedure 1332 RADVision Remarks on H.225.0 1333 Editor Drat Amendment 5 to H.222.0 1334 Editor Draft Annex I to H.225.0 1335 Editor Darft H.245 V4 1336 Editor Darft H.310 V2 1337 Editor Draft H.bmultipoint 1338 Editor Draft Annex D to H.323 1339 PictureTel Proposals and General Comments for H.323 Annex C 1340 Mitel Message Waiting Indication Supplementary Service in H.323 1341 3Com, Ascend, Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom, GPT, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Post & Telecom Austria (PTA), Siements, VocalTec Inter-Gatekeeper Communication Requirements (H.323 Annex G) 1342 ETSI Communication from EP TIPHON to ITU SG16 on Codec support for H.323 1343 MPEG Liaison response regarding DMIF 1344 Editor H.246 Work Plan and Discussion 1345 VideoServer/Intel Proposal for H.MediaMIB 1346 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 Call Signalling MIB 1347 VideoServer Proposal for H.225 RAS MIB 1348 VideoServer Proposal for H.245 MIB 1349 Cisco Proposal for H.323 Gatekeeper MIB 1350 VideoServer Proposal for H.323 Terminal MIB 1351 multiple Faster connect for H.323 terminals 1352 Editor Draft H.323 v2 Implementers Guide 1353 Intel Proposals and general comments for Inter-Gatekeeper Communications 1354 IBM Comment to the current H.323 endpoint registration procedure 1355 IBM Coding of the MultipointCapabilitys within the H2250Capability data structure 1356 Intel Proposal for Real Time Device Control in H.323 1357 NTT DoCoMo The support of MPEG-4 video in H.324 terminals 1358 Secretary of Meeting Host Organization Network configuration of Yokosuka Rapporteur Meeting 1359 Fujitsu Proposed addition to H.245 for the AAL1/5 conversion gateway capabilities 1360 RADVision Comments on H.235: H.323 Procedures 1361 RADVision GK's role in up-to-date H.323 architecture 1362 Editor Corrections to Decided H.225.0 V2 1363 Lucent H.225 Signaling Enhancements 1364 Madge Networks Comment on the current limitations in H.225.0 v2 for signalling call setup parameters for an outgoing SCN call 1365 VTEL A MIB for audiovisual communication terminals 1366 Accord Real Time Device Control in H.323 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

APC-1336
by Kiyoshi SAKAI 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

Dear Mr. Okubo and Q.12-14 colleagues, I have uploaded the following file to the "avc-site/Incoming" directory; apc1336.zip: Draft H.310 version 2 The zip-file contains a Word95/6.0(US version) compatible document. If you have any problems to read the file, please let me know. Regards, ********************************************************************** Kiyoshi Sakai Media Processing Laboratory Multimedia Systems Labs. FUJITSU LABORATORIES LTD. Tel. : +81 44 754 2679 Fax. : +81 44 754 2347 E-mail : sakai(a)flab.fujitsu.co.jp **********************************************************************

1 0

Multiple RAS messages per PDU?
by Paul Long 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

6.1/H.225.0v2 says, "When messages are sent on the reliable H.245 control channel, more than one message may be sent within the boundaries defined by the reliable transport PDU as long as whole messages are sent;" However, nothing is said about whether more than one _RAS_ message may be sent "within the boundaries defined by the _un_reliable transport PDU as long as whole messages are sent." Are we allowed or prohibited from packing RAS messages, or is this just not addressed in the Recommendation? Paul Long Smith Micro

2 1