- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: Document number request
by OKUBO Sakae 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Dear Faisal, At 20:24 +0530 05/02/14, faisal.siyavudeen(a)cisco.com wrote: >I have uploaded AVD-2666 and AVD-2667 to /avc-site/Incoming/ folder. They have been moved to /avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/ directory. -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Document number request
by OKUBO Sakae 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Dear Faisal, At 12:36 +0530 05/02/14, faisal.siyavudeen(a)cisco.com wrote: >I would like to request document numbers for the following documents >to bepresented at the Melbourne meeting. Thank you for your input contributions. The following AVD-numbers have been allocated to them: AVD-2666 Title: New no-bandwidth error code in H.225.0 AdmissionRejectReason Question(s): Q.2 Source: Cisco Systems, Inc. Purpose: Proposal AVD-2667 Title: Revised H.225.0 Recommendation Question(s): Q.2 Source: Editor Purpose: Proposal (Revised recommendation for discussion and approval) The current list of registered documents can be found at the following place: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.html http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.xls -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248 .14
by Albrecht.Schwarz＠alcatel.de 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Dear LinYangbo, just a feedback: we are presently preparing comments on your preliminary contribution. But we are still struggling with your scenario C because of it's overlapping with ServiceChange procedures. Nevertheless, we'll write down our view latest end of this week for submission to our meeting. Best regards Albrecht Yangbo Lin <linyangbo@huawe To: Kevin Boyle <kboyle(a)nortel.com>, ITU-T SG16 i.com> <itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com> cc: 12.02.2005 21:20 Subject: Re: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248 .14 Dear All, From 9 to 23 Feb in this year is the "Spring Festival" of China, the most importantest traditional festival for the East, just like the Christmas for the West. Thus, let me bring all the best wishes to all of you ---- Happy Chinese New Year! All of the effort we continue to do for H.248 is to make such most importantest protocol between MG and MGC more perfect. We need to edit or supply the base protocol and the appendix packages once and again just for meeting the more and more requests. So the package maybe full fit the request of the day when it was defined, but the current request from the actual application need it been revised. firstly, the relation of MGC and MG is principal and subordinate from the point of view of control, but peer to peer from the point of view of communication. So MGC monitors MG's status by AuditValue command with empty Audit descriptor and MG monitors MGC's status by Notify command with "ito" observed event are independent each other in theory. MGC can tell MG how to monitor itself, for example using the "mit" parameter to tell MG the message silence limit of MGC. However it is unreasonable for MGC to determine whether MG should monitor itself as the package's original definition. Typically, without MG startup the monitor mechanism on its own initiative, how can we resolve those scenarios described in this contribution's "problem discussion" section? Secondly, the actual networks condition is very complex and the protocol should have the ability to accommodate the different requests as more as possible. We can not only depend the transport to provide the all reliability, just like besides IPSec we should have Interim AH Scheme. The section "MGC-MG link monitoring" in the newest Draft H.248.1 v3 also indicates that we should adopt this application level monitoring when the transport layer can't supply the same function. So the UDP is just a example, the essential we need is a communication-link monitoring mechanism which is independent to the transport layer. In fact, the UDP is also the most common transport layer, should we make a protocol without considering it? finally, the proposed revises to H.248.14 in this contribution is completely compatible with the existing mechanism defined in H.248.14. We recommend the implementer to adopt the new enhanced mechanism because it can resolve more problems, however it is no mandatory. In fact, the implementer may remain the existing devices which comply the original mechanism and develop the new devices which comply the enhanced mechanism in a same networks. It is just a version different and fully backward compatible. Please take above clarifies into your consideration. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Yangbo ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Boyle To: Yangbo Lin ; ITU-T SG16 Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 5:00 AM Subject: RE: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248 .14 I believe this is the third meeting at which we will consider these changes, with the Question rejecting the changes the previous two times (Beijing last May, and Geneva in November). I will reiterate for everyone's benefit that the current definition of the package came about as a result of a significant amount of debate across several meetings. The mandate that the MGC first enable this mechanism was one of the key items in those discussions, and was specifically one of the criteria that had to be met to allow the package to consent. I do not believe that we need to attempt to build UDP reliability at the H.248 application layer -- reliability is a transport issue and needs to be solved there. As was mentioned the last two times this was brought up, if guaranteed connections are a requirement for your implementation, then you should use SCTP or TCP as the transport. Forcing additional requirements on other systems that may not need them doesn't appear to be the right way to solve this to me. Kevin From: Yangbo Lin [mailto:linyangbo@huawei.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:59 PM To: ITU-T SG16 Cc: Yangbo Lin Subject: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248.14 Dear All: The attached document is about some proposed revises to H.248.14 Inactivity Timer Package. It is intended to ITU-T SG16 Rapporteur Meeting on Melbourne (Feb-Mar 2005), but maybe no the final contribution. The delay contribution with the same subject (D0021) had been discussed in the ITU-T SG16 Plenary Meeting on Geneva (Nov 2004). However there were some misunderstanding for that contribution had not been clarified adequately then. So I renewed the document to give more detail about the essentiality of these revises. Please pay attention to the section "Problem Discussion" for the object secenario we aim to resolve, and the chapter "Conclusion" for the detailed revises we proposed. I issue the document inside this mail-list in order to gain your expert advices as more as possible. Any advice or comment from anyone of you is highly appreciated. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Yangbo

1 0

Re: Document number request
by OKUBO Sakae 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Dear Christian, At 14:36 +1100 05/02/14, Christian Groves wrote: >I'd like to request document numbers for the following documents: Thank you for your contributions. They have been numbered as follows: AVD-2660: H.248.1 Annex F: Editorial Improvements and Corrections AVD-2661: H.248.1v3: Corrections and Improvements AVD-2662: H.248.1: Enhancements to the Profile Template AVD-2663: H.248.x Sub Series IG: Additions AVD-2664: Introduction of a H.248.x Symmetric RTP/RTCP NAPT Package >The above documents are source : LM Ericsson AVD-2665: Draft H Series Supplement 2 - H.248.x sub-series Package Guide Release 7 >The above document is source : Editor An updated list of registered documents can be found at: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.html http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.xls -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Contributions to the Melbourne meeting
by OKUBO Sakae 12 Feb '05

12 Feb '05

Dear Sasha, At 19:15 -0500 05/02/12, Sasha Ruditsky wrote: >Can I have a document numbers for the following contribution to Q5: Thank you for your contributions. They have been registered as follows: AVD-2657 "FW/NAT traversal problems" AVD-2658 "Using H.225.0 as transport for H.323 RAS messages" AVD-2659 "Method for media traversal of FW/NAT for H.323" An updated list of registered documents can be found at: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.html http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.xls -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248 .14
by Yangbo Lin 12 Feb '05

12 Feb '05

Dear All, >From 9 to 23 Feb in this year is the "Spring Festival" of China, the most importantest traditional festival for the East, just like the Christmas for the West. Thus, let me bring all the best wishes to all of you ---- Happy Chinese New Year! All of the effort we continue to do for H.248 is to make such most importantest protocol between MG and MGC more perfect. We need to edit or supply the base protocol and the appendix packages once and again just for meeting the more and more requests. So the package maybe full fit the request of the day when it was defined, but the current request from the actual application need it been revised. firstly, the relation of MGC and MG is principal and subordinate from the point of view of control, but peer to peer from the point of view of communication. So MGC monitors MG's status by AuditValue command with empty Audit descriptor and MG monitors MGC's status by Notify command with "ito" observed event are independent each other in theory. MGC can tell MG how to monitor itself, for example using the "mit" parameter to tell MG the message silence limit of MGC. However it is unreasonable for MGC to determine whether MG should monitor itself as the package's original definition. Typically, without MG startup the monitor mechanism on its own initiative, how can we resolve those scenarios described in this contribution's "problem discussion" section? Secondly, the actual networks condition is very complex and the protocol should have the ability to accommodate the different requests as more as possible. We can not only depend the transport to provide the all reliability, just like besides IPSec we should have Interim AH Scheme. The section "MGC-MG link monitoring" in the newest Draft H.248.1 v3 also indicates that we should adopt this application level monitoring when the transport layer can't supply the same function. So the UDP is just a example, the essential we need is a communication-link monitoring mechanism which is independent to the transport layer. In fact, the UDP is also the most common transport layer, should we make a protocol without considering it? finally, the proposed revises to H.248.14 in this contribution is completely compatible with the existing mechanism defined in H.248.14. We recommend the implementer to adopt the new enhanced mechanism because it can resolve more problems, however it is no mandatory. In fact, the implementer may remain the existing devices which comply the original mechanism and develop the new devices which comply the enhanced mechanism in a same networks. It is just a version different and fully backward compatible. Please take above clarifies into your consideration. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Yangbo ----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:kboyle@nortel.com> Kevin Boyle To: <mailto:linyangbo@huawei.com> Yangbo Lin ; <mailto:itu-sg16@external.cisco.com> ITU-T SG16 Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 5:00 AM Subject: RE: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248 .14 I believe this is the third meeting at which we will consider these changes, with the Question rejecting the changes the previous two times (Beijing last May, and Geneva in November). I will reiterate for everyone's benefit that the current definition of the package came about as a result of a significant amount of debate across several meetings. The mandate that the MGC first enable this mechanism was one of the key items in those discussions, and was specifically one of the criteria that had to be met to allow the package to consent. I do not believe that we need to attempt to build UDP reliability at the H.248 application layer -- reliability is a transport issue and needs to be solved there. As was mentioned the last two times this was brought up, if guaranteed connections are a requirement for your implementation, then you should use SCTP or TCP as the transport. Forcing additional requirements on other systems that may not need them doesn't appear to be the right way to solve this to me. Kevin _____ From: Yangbo Lin [mailto:linyangbo@huawei.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:59 PM To: ITU-T SG16 Cc: Yangbo Lin Subject: Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248.14 Dear All: The attached document is about some proposed revises to H.248.14 Inactivity Timer Package. It is intended to ITU-T SG16 Rapporteur Meeting on Melbourne (Feb-Mar 2005), but maybe no the final contribution. The delay contribution with the same subject (D0021) had been discussed in the ITU-T SG16 Plenary Meeting on Geneva (Nov 2004). However there were some misunderstanding for that contribution had not been clarified adequately then. So I renewed the document to give more detail about the essentiality of these revises. Please pay attention to the section "Problem Discussion" for the object secenario we aim to resolve, and the chapter "Conclusion" for the detailed revises we proposed. I issue the document inside this mail-list in order to gain your expert advices as more as possible. Any advice or comment from anyone of you is highly appreciated. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Yangbo

1 0

RE: Contributions to the Melbourne meeting
by OKUBO Sakae 11 Feb '05

11 Feb '05

Dear Roni, At 20:36 +0200 05/02/11, Even, Roni wrote: >Can I have a document number for a contribution to Q5 >The contribution title will be "NAT traversal through SBCs issues and >suggested solutions" AVD-2656 has been allocated to your contribution. An updated list of registered documents can be found at the following place: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.html http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.xls -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Q29/16 Input documents Melbourne
by OKUBO Sakae 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Dear Mr. Lehmann, At 15:04 +0100 05/02/08, Leo.Lehmann(a)bakom.admin.ch wrote: >Attached you will find two input documents from Q.29/16: >- completed Revision of technical report "combined mobility" including >securuty aspects >- Mobility Definitions for H.510 > >May I ask you to register these documents for Q.29/16 session at the >Melbourne meeting? Thanks a lot for your help AVD-2654 and AVD-2655 have been allocated to your contributions. They have been uploaded to the 0502_Mel directory. http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2654.zip http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2655.zip or ftp://ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2654.zip ftp://ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2655.zip user: avguest password: Avguest >By the way: Do you think that there is an interest of the >participants at the Melbourne meeting if I give in my role as SG13 >liaison officer a short report of the last SG13 meeting in Geneva? Your report of SG13 activities is very much appreciated. -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Contribution: AMR codec support in H245 using RFC3267
by OKUBO Sakae 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Dear Venkata, At 11:51 -0800 05/02/07, Venkata Nanduri wrote: >Can you please make the attached document available for Melbourne meeting? > >You have already assigned the document number AVD-2589. This is now available at the Melbourne directory: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2589.zip or ftp://ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/AVD-2589.zip user: avguest password: Avguest -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: request for contribution numbers
by OKUBO Sakae 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Dear Mr. Euchner, At 20:37 +0100 05/02/07, Euchner Martin wrote: >Let me kindly request contribution numbers for the following H.235 >editor's contributions: Thank you for your input documents to which the following AVD-numbers have been allocated: AVD-2647: New Draft H.235.0 "Security framework for H-series (H.323 and other H.245-based) multimedia systems" AVD-2648: New Draft H.235.1 "Baseline Security Profile" AVD-2649: Draft H.235.2 "Signature Security Profile" AVD-2650: Draft H.235.3 "Hybrid Security Profile" AVD-2651: Draft H.235.4 "Direct and Selective Routed Call Security" AVD-2652: New Draft H.235.6 "Voice encryption profile with native H.235/H.245 key management" AVD-2653: New Draft H.235.7 "Usage of the MIKEY Key Management Protocol for the Secure Real Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) within H.235" >All those contributions are from the H.235.{0,1,2,3,4,6,7} subseries editor. -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Document number request
by OKUBO Sakae 05 Feb '05

05 Feb '05

Dear Mr. Nie and Mr. Fourie, In reseponse to your requests, the following document numbers have been allocated to your draft Recommendations: AVD-2644 Q.22 Draft F.DL Distance learning services Editor (XY Nie) AVD-2645 Q.22 Draft F.AVoD Audiovisual on demand services Editor (XY Nie) AVD-2646 Q.25 Draft H.235.8 Key Exchange for SRTP using secure signalling channels Editor (L Fourie) -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Request any expert advice to the proposed revises about H.248.14
by Yangbo Lin 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Dear All: The attached document is about some proposed revises to H.248.14 Inactivity Timer Package. It is intended to ITU-T SG16 Rapporteur Meeting on Melbourne (Feb-Mar 2005), but maybe no the final contribution. The delay contribution with the same subject (D0021) had been discussed in the ITU-T SG16 Plenary Meeting on Geneva (Nov 2004). However there were some misunderstanding for that contribution had not been clarified adequately then. So I renewed the document to give more detail about the essentiality of these revises. Please pay attention to the section "Problem Discussion" for the object secenario we aim to resolve, and the chapter "Conclusion" for the detailed revises we proposed. I issue the document inside this mail-list in order to gain your expert advices as more as possible. Any advice or comment from anyone of you is highly appreciated. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Yangbo

1 0

Re: contribution number
by OKUBO Sakae 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Dear Ms. Sun, In response to your request, the following AVD-numbers have been allocated to your two contributions: AVD-2633 >Question(s):Q.22/16 >Source*: CATR,P.R.China, Editor >Title: IP Multimedia Conference (F.MMCIP) AVD-2634 >Question(s):Q.25/16 >Source*: CATR,P.R.China,ZTE Corporation, Editor >Title: Proposed Text for negotiation of security protocols for >the H.225.0 call signaling message (H.460.spn) Could you advise me if they are Editor's drafts or rather CATR/ZTE contributions? -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Re: Contributions: No. & Uploads; Re: Number Allocations for
by OKUBO Sakae 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Dear Mr. Schwarz, At 11:10 +0100 05/02/03, Albrecht.Schwarz(a)alcatel.de wrote: >I'd like to register a further contribution: > >Question(s):Q.3/16 >Source*: ALCATEL >Title: H.248.1 Version 3 ? Protocol Version in Profile Template? > >Could you please assign a number? AVD-2632 has been allocated to this contribution. Thank you. >I've furthermore posted 21 contributions in the incoming directory: >http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/Incoming/ They have been moved to the Melbourne directory. http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/ ftp://avguest:Avguest@ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/ -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

Anatomy: A look inside NATs
by Euchner Martin 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '05

FYI: Please find an URL to a good introduction on NATs: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/anato my.html <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/anat omy.html> With kind regards Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Rapporteur | Martin Euchner Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Siemens AG.....................Fax : +49 89 722 62366 | COM GC PS 3 mailto:Martin.Euchner@siemens.com <mailto:Martin.Euchner@siemens.com> | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int <mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int> | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://ietf.icn.siemens.de/sr3/Standardisation_Topics/security/ <http://ietf.icn.siemens.de/sr3/Standardisation_Topics/security/> | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de/ <http://www.siemens.de/> | __________________ | Germany -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Contributions to the Melbourne meeting
by OKUBO Sakae 30 Jan '05

30 Jan '05

Dear WP2/16 experts, This is to remind you of the following dates: /// Registration of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 18 February 2005 /// /// Distribution of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 21 February 2005 /// The current list of registered documents can be found at the following place: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.html http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel/0502_Mel.xls So far AVD-2588 through AVD-2631 have been registered. You can download documents by ftp with the following URL: ftp://avguest:Avguest@ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2005-2008/0502_Mel -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Venkata Nanduri 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

Hi, Thanks for the information. please see in line.... At 09:32 AM 1/27/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: >hello, > >Although the background of the issues I mentioned about the "mode-set" and >"mode-change-period" parameters is the limitations of the GSM signaling, >this is not explicitly mentioned in RFC 3267. This will be at least >somewhat clarified in the updated version. However, the point I was trying >to make is that a user that is not a gateway to GSM system should be >discouraged to set up a session with limitations in mode changes to avoid >interoperability problems. Maybe this could somehow addressed in your draft? <vnanduri> I think it will be good if the limitations about GSM signaling are mentioned in your updated draft rather than the proposal that I will be submitting which is based on RFC 3267 so that readers of RFC 3267 get that info from your updated draft. Any idea on when this latest draft mentioned below will replace RFC3267? Do you think the proposal to H.245 should be based on this latest draft now? Venkata >The problem about the "mode-change-period"'s actual meaning (i.e. is it a >sender capability or a receiver limitation) was identified only after the >RFC 3267 was published in this is not mentioned in the spec. > >We have tried to clarify these issues in the new draft revision of the >update to RFC 3267 publishded on Jan. 26 (see >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-01.txt) >Note that there are major changes only in section 8, see especially a new >parameter "mode-change-capability" and slightly changed definitions for >parameters "mode-change-period" and "mode-change-neighbor". > >br, >Ari > >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] >Sent: 27 January, 2005 08:13 >To: Lakaniemi Ari (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) >Cc: roni.even(a)polycom.co.il; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; Hagqvist Jari >(Nokia-NRC/Tampere); vdukki(a)cisco.com >Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > >Hi, > >Please see on line.... > >At 09:58 AM 1/26/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: > >hello Venkata, > >Thanks for the explanations. It seems that I was not reading thoroughly >enough since I missed the CRC and robust-sorting features incorporated >into the octetAlign parameter. > >Some furhter comments below. > >modeSet: >OK, I can see the reasoning behind the modeSet definition as it is written >in your draft. However, since absence of modeSet would mean a session >without any allowed modes, wouldn't it make sense to make this parameter >mandatory? > ><vnanduri> This parameter can be made mandatory. > > >(Note also that in RFC 3267 the parameter mode-set is introduced only to >enable connections (through a gateway) to GSM networks, which can only >support mode-sets of up to 4 AMR modes. I think in 'normal' VoIP usage the >full set of AMR modes should be supported.) > > ><vnanduri> I think RFC3267 does not mention about the restrictions >mentioned above. If so, can you please point me to the section? > > > > >modeChangePeriod: >This is also something that is defined in RFC 3267 only for interopreation >with GSM (where the signaling is limited in such a way that mode changes >are restricted to happen in 2-frame intervals). Thus, I think other values >than (1 or) 2 are not meaningful in practice. I do not know if this >document would be a right place to include an informational note about this... > >There is actually an identified problem regarding this in RFC 3267: does >the parameter mode-change-period indicate sender's capability to send >(also) using mode-change-period=2 (since the AMR _codec_ does not have >such limitation) or receiver's capability to _only_ receive using >mode-change-period=2? We are currently preapring an update for RFC 3267 >(which will be eventually published with different RFC number) to clarify >this (among some other things). > > ><vnanduri> I think RFC3267 does not mention about the restrictions >mentioned above. If so, can you please point me to the section? > >On Internet I could find ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-00.txt. But, that may not be >the latest. >Can you please send me the latest draft that is in progress(updated rfc3267)? > >Thanks >Venkata > > > > > >br, >Ari > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > > Sent: 26 January, 2005 00:16 > > To: Lakaniemi Ari (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > > Cc: roni.even(a)polycom.co.il; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; > > Hagqvist Jari > > (Nokia-NRC/Tampere) > > Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > Importance: High > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Please see in line..... > > > > Look for vnanduri > > > > At 03:47 PM 1/25/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: > > >hello Venkata, > > > > > >Thanks for preparing the document. > > > > > >I have more or less the same comment as Roni Even already made: > > >There seems to be no parameters for controlling the "crc" and > > >"robust-sorting" options available in RFC 3267. Are these > > options somehow > > >problematic in the scope of H.245? > > > > > > <vnanduri> > > > > In-order to apply CRC, interleaving and robust-sorting , > > frame format shall > > be octet aligned. > > Since there is a dependency among different parameters, octetAlign > > parameter is defined in > > H245 which also handles CRC and robust-sorting. May be I need > > to rename > > this octetAlign > > parameter to something that is meaningful for octetAlign, CRC and > > robust-sorting (Any suggestions??) > > The presence of octetAlign parameter itself indicates octet > > aligned frame > > format. > > > > The octetAlign parameter is defined as booleanArray to take > > care of CRC and > > robust-sorting > > values. Bit 0 is used for CRC and Bit 1 for robust-sorting. > > > > But, interleaving can also be only applied if the frame format is > > octet-aligned and the value for > > interleaving is number of frame blocks which cannot be > > defined as part of > > booleanArray. So, a > > new parameter is defined. Interleaving parameter shall be absent if > > octetAlign parameter is absent. > > > > The main intention of consolidating the parameters is to > > minimize the bits > > that will be transmitted > > across the wire... > > > > > > >Another question is about the definition of the capability > > parameter modeSet. > > >Currently the draft specifies that > > > > > > "... If present, specifies the subset of modes available > > for current > > > session. If absent, no modes are supported." > > > > > >However, in RFC 3267 the definition of the corresponding > > MIME parameter says > > > "... If not present, all codec modes are allowed for the session." > > > > > >Maybe it would be clearer to use the same interpretation as > > in RFC 3267 in > > >case the paramter modeSet is not present? > > > > > > <vnanduri> > > > > For some of the parameters defined in RFC3267, similar parameters are > > defined with a different interpretation in H.245 > > to take care of conference scenarios. > > > > Please look below for details about why they are defined > > differently in H.245: > > > > > > 1) octet-align(SDP) -------->octetAlign--booleanArray (also > > accommodates > > crc and robust-sorting)(H.245) > > > > described above > > > > 2) mode-set(SDP) ---------->modeSet and modeSetExtended. > > modeSetExtended is > > used only AMR-WB(H245) > > > > modeSet is defined as booleanArray which can accommodate only > > 8 boolean > > values. Since AMR-NB has only > > 8 bit rates, modeSet parameter will be sufficient for AMR-NB. > > How ever, > > since AMR-WB has 9 modes, first > > 8 modes will be accommodated in modeSet parameter and 9th > > mode will be > > accommodated in > > modeSetExtended parameter. > > > > Suppose an MC that is not aware of AMR codec capability, gets this > > capability from three endpoints A, B and C > > and wants to create a common capability description. Suppose > > A sends no > > modeSet, B sends a modeSet with > > 10000011 and C sends a modeSet with 10000001. Now, a common > > capability > > description should contain the > > modeSet as 10000001. But the MC has to ignore those > > parameters that are not > > supported by all endpoints. > > > > So the MC will send out a cap description without a modeSet, > > which will > > imply support for all modes, which is not > > the expected behavior. So, absence of this parameter is > > defined as lack of > > support of any modes. > > > > The same comment applies for modeSetExtended - the absence of > > the parameter > > should indicate lack of support for > > the 9th mode, and this parameter should be present if the > > 9th mode is > > supported. > > > > 3) mode-change-period(SDP) ----->modeChangePeriod(H245). > > > > For modeChangePeriod, for example, if A sent a period of 5, B > > sent 3 and C > > did not > > send anything, the common cap description prepared by the MC > > will not contain a > > modeChangePeriod. So A, which could only change modes once in > > 5 frames will > > now receive audio that may changes mode at every frame which > > is not the > > expected > > behavior. Hence, this parameter is made mandatory and is > > defined as unsignedMax > > which indicates to MC that it has to select the largest value > > it receives > > from different > > end points. With this definition in H.245 Now, C has to > > send 0 as the value, > > and MC will select 5 which is the appropriate value. > > > > 4) mode-change-neighbor(SDP) -----> modeChangeAll(H245) > > > > For example, if A did not send, B sent with value 1, C sent > > value of 0, > > > > Again, an MC that does not include the value because one > > endpoint did not > > include. > > It will be creating a common capability description that indicates > > permission to > > switch to any mode(absence of param from A or a value 0 from > > C). Again > > this is not > > the expected behavior. > > > > So, this parameter is defined as 'ModeChangeAll'. The > > presence of this > > parameter > > means 'change from any to any mode is permitted'. Then if a > > combining MC > > creates > > a cap description that does not have ModeChangeAll (because > > one endpoint > > did not send it), > > it will be correctly forcing all endpoints to the common > > subset which is > > change to neighboring > > modes only is permitted'. > > > > > > 5) maxptime(SDP) ----------> alAduFrames(H.245) > > 6) ptime(DSP)-------> alAduFrames(H245) > > > > numFrames parameter will correspond to the value for maxptime > > when used in > > TCS messages and will correspond to value for ptime when used > > in OLC and MR > > messages. > > > > 7) crc(SDP) -----------> octetAlign(H.245) > > > > described above > > > > 8) robust-sorting(SDP) ------> octetAlign(H.245) > > > > described above > > > > 9) interleaving(SDP) -----> interleaving(H.245) > > > > described above > > > > 10) channels(SDP) -----> numChannels(H245) > > > > Same as SDP > > > > Please let me know if you have any other questions... > > > > Thanks > > Venkata > > > > > > >BR, > > >Ari Lakaniemi > > >Nokia Research Center > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ext Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] > > > > Sent: 25 January, 2005 10:10 > > > > To: Venkata Nanduri; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; Lakaniemi Ari > > > > (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > > > > Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I just scanned through the draft. I noticed that there is no full > > > > mapping of the SDP parameters from RFC3267 to generic > > parameters. Is > > > > there a reason for the difference. > > > > I think that there should be some text that will explain the > > > > relationship to H.245 annex I. > > > > Roni Even > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 AM > > > > To: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi(a)NOKIA.COM > > > > Cc: vnanduri(a)cisco.com > > > > Subject: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > > > > > Dear SG16 experts, > > > > > > > > I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to > > next meeting of > > > > SG16 > > > > group to be held at > > > > Melbourne in February last week, 2005. > > > > > > > > Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to > > get some early > > > > feedback on the proposal > > > > from experts in the group. > > > > > > > > Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Venkata > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Venkata Nanduri 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

Hi, Please see on line.... At 09:58 AM 1/26/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: hello Venkata, Thanks for the explanations. It seems that I was not reading thoroughly enough since I missed the CRC and robust-sorting features incorporated into the octetAlign parameter. Some furhter comments below. modeSet: OK, I can see the reasoning behind the modeSet definition as it is written in your draft. However, since absence of modeSet would mean a session without any allowed modes, wouldn't it make sense to make this parameter mandatory? <vnanduri> This parameter can be made mandatory. (Note also that in RFC 3267 the parameter mode-set is introduced only to enable connections (through a gateway) to GSM networks, which can only support mode-sets of up to 4 AMR modes. I think in 'normal' VoIP usage the full set of AMR modes should be supported.) <vnanduri> I think RFC3267 does not mention about the restrictions mentioned above. If so, can you please point me to the section? modeChangePeriod: This is also something that is defined in RFC 3267 only for interopreation with GSM (where the signaling is limited in such a way that mode changes are restricted to happen in 2-frame intervals). Thus, I think other values than (1 or) 2 are not meaningful in practice. I do not know if this document would be a right place to include an informational note about this... There is actually an identified problem regarding this in RFC 3267: does the parameter mode-change-period indicate sender's capability to send (also) using mode-change-period=2 (since the AMR _codec_ does not have such limitation) or receiver's capability to _only_ receive using mode-change-period=2? We are currently preapring an update for RFC 3267 (which will be eventually published with different RFC number) to clarify this (among some other things). <vnanduri> I think RFC3267 does not mention about the restrictions mentioned above. If so, can you please point me to the section? On Internet I could find ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-00.txt. But, that may not be the latest. Can you please send me the latest draft that is in progress(updated rfc3267)? Thanks Venkata br, Ari > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > Sent: 26 January, 2005 00:16 > To: Lakaniemi Ari (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: roni.even(a)polycom.co.il; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; > Hagqvist Jari > (Nokia-NRC/Tampere) > Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > Importance: High > > > Hi, > > Please see in line..... > > Look for vnanduri > > At 03:47 PM 1/25/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: > >hello Venkata, > > > >Thanks for preparing the document. > > > >I have more or less the same comment as Roni Even already made: > >There seems to be no parameters for controlling the "crc" and > >"robust-sorting" options available in RFC 3267. Are these > options somehow > >problematic in the scope of H.245? > > > <vnanduri> > > In-order to apply CRC, interleaving and robust-sorting , > frame format shall > be octet aligned. > Since there is a dependency among different parameters, octetAlign > parameter is defined in > H245 which also handles CRC and robust-sorting. May be I need > to rename > this octetAlign > parameter to something that is meaningful for octetAlign, CRC and > robust-sorting (Any suggestions??) > The presence of octetAlign parameter itself indicates octet > aligned frame > format. > > The octetAlign parameter is defined as booleanArray to take > care of CRC and > robust-sorting > values. Bit 0 is used for CRC and Bit 1 for robust-sorting. > > But, interleaving can also be only applied if the frame format is > octet-aligned and the value for > interleaving is number of frame blocks which cannot be > defined as part of > booleanArray. So, a > new parameter is defined. Interleaving parameter shall be absent if > octetAlign parameter is absent. > > The main intention of consolidating the parameters is to > minimize the bits > that will be transmitted > across the wire... > > > >Another question is about the definition of the capability > parameter modeSet. > >Currently the draft specifies that > > > > "... If present, specifies the subset of modes available > for current > > session. If absent, no modes are supported." > > > >However, in RFC 3267 the definition of the corresponding > MIME parameter says > > "... If not present, all codec modes are allowed for the session." > > > >Maybe it would be clearer to use the same interpretation as > in RFC 3267 in > >case the paramter modeSet is not present? > > > <vnanduri> > > For some of the parameters defined in RFC3267, similar parameters are > defined with a different interpretation in H.245 > to take care of conference scenarios. > > Please look below for details about why they are defined > differently in H.245: > > > 1) octet-align(SDP) -------->octetAlign--booleanArray (also > accommodates > crc and robust-sorting)(H.245) > > described above > > 2) mode-set(SDP) ---------->modeSet and modeSetExtended. > modeSetExtended is > used only AMR-WB(H245) > > modeSet is defined as booleanArray which can accommodate only > 8 boolean > values. Since AMR-NB has only > 8 bit rates, modeSet parameter will be sufficient for AMR-NB. > How ever, > since AMR-WB has 9 modes, first > 8 modes will be accommodated in modeSet parameter and 9th > mode will be > accommodated in > modeSetExtended parameter. > > Suppose an MC that is not aware of AMR codec capability, gets this > capability from three endpoints A, B and C > and wants to create a common capability description. Suppose > A sends no > modeSet, B sends a modeSet with > 10000011 and C sends a modeSet with 10000001. Now, a common > capability > description should contain the > modeSet as 10000001. But the MC has to ignore those > parameters that are not > supported by all endpoints. > > So the MC will send out a cap description without a modeSet, > which will > imply support for all modes, which is not > the expected behavior. So, absence of this parameter is > defined as lack of > support of any modes. > > The same comment applies for modeSetExtended - the absence of > the parameter > should indicate lack of support for > the 9th mode, and this parameter should be present if the > 9th mode is > supported. > > 3) mode-change-period(SDP) ----->modeChangePeriod(H245). > > For modeChangePeriod, for example, if A sent a period of 5, B > sent 3 and C > did not > send anything, the common cap description prepared by the MC > will not contain a > modeChangePeriod. So A, which could only change modes once in > 5 frames will > now receive audio that may changes mode at every frame which > is not the > expected > behavior. Hence, this parameter is made mandatory and is > defined as unsignedMax > which indicates to MC that it has to select the largest value > it receives > from different > end points. With this definition in H.245 Now, C has to > send 0 as the value, > and MC will select 5 which is the appropriate value. > > 4) mode-change-neighbor(SDP) -----> modeChangeAll(H245) > > For example, if A did not send, B sent with value 1, C sent > value of 0, > > Again, an MC that does not include the value because one > endpoint did not > include. > It will be creating a common capability description that indicates > permission to > switch to any mode(absence of param from A or a value 0 from > C). Again > this is not > the expected behavior. > > So, this parameter is defined as 'ModeChangeAll'. The > presence of this > parameter > means 'change from any to any mode is permitted'. Then if a > combining MC > creates > a cap description that does not have ModeChangeAll (because > one endpoint > did not send it), > it will be correctly forcing all endpoints to the common > subset which is > change to neighboring > modes only is permitted'. > > > 5) maxptime(SDP) ----------> alAduFrames(H.245) > 6) ptime(DSP)-------> alAduFrames(H245) > > numFrames parameter will correspond to the value for maxptime > when used in > TCS messages and will correspond to value for ptime when used > in OLC and MR > messages. > > 7) crc(SDP) -----------> octetAlign(H.245) > > described above > > 8) robust-sorting(SDP) ------> octetAlign(H.245) > > described above > > 9) interleaving(SDP) -----> interleaving(H.245) > > described above > > 10) channels(SDP) -----> numChannels(H245) > > Same as SDP > > Please let me know if you have any other questions... > > Thanks > Venkata > > > >BR, > >Ari Lakaniemi > >Nokia Research Center > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ext Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] > > > Sent: 25 January, 2005 10:10 > > > To: Venkata Nanduri; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; Lakaniemi Ari > > > (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > > > Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I just scanned through the draft. I noticed that there is no full > > > mapping of the SDP parameters from RFC3267 to generic > parameters. Is > > > there a reason for the difference. > > > I think that there should be some text that will explain the > > > relationship to H.245 annex I. > > > Roni Even > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 AM > > > To: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi(a)NOKIA.COM > > > Cc: vnanduri(a)cisco.com > > > Subject: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > > > Dear SG16 experts, > > > > > > I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to > next meeting of > > > SG16 > > > group to be held at > > > Melbourne in February last week, 2005. > > > > > > Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to > get some early > > > feedback on the proposal > > > from experts in the group. > > > > > > Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Venkata > > > >

1 0

RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by simao.campos＠ITU.INT 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

All, I think that it would be too confusing to have two annexes dealing with the same coding. I suggest that Annex I be revised, even if it means a total rewriting of it. Just consider whether the previous definitions should be maintained as a matter of backward compatibility with existing systems. Best regards, Simao > -----Original Message----- > From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > Sent: 26 January 2005 03:04 > To: Dave Lindbergh > Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi(a)NOKIA.COM > Subject: Re: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > Hi, > > I think existing Annex - I in H.245 is written much before > RFC3267 is written and hence it out of sync in content. > > The RTP format mentioned in Annex - I is different from what > is mentioned in RFC3267. > > Even if we want to incorporate this material in existing > Annex - I, it will be like replacing the entire Annex - I > content with the new content.. > > Thanks > Venkata > > > At 07:50 PM 1/25/2005 -0500, Dave Lindbergh wrote: > >Is there a reason why this needs to be a separate Annex to > H.245? I'd > >prefer to incorporate this material into an existing Annex, just to > >reduce the amount of clutter in H.245. > > > >--Dave > > > >At 05:32 PM 1/24/2005, Venkata Nanduri wrote: > >>Dear SG16 experts, > >> > >>I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next > meeting of > >>SG16 group to be held at > >>Melbourne in February last week, 2005. > >> > >>Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get > some early > >>feedback on the proposal from experts in the group. > >> > >>Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? > >> > >>Thanks > >>Venkata > > > >---------- > >Dave Lindbergh > >Polycom, Inc. > >100 Minuteman Road > >Andover MA 01810 USA > >Voice: +1 978 292 5366 > >Email: lindbergh(a)92F1.com > >H.320, H.323 video by arrangement >

1 0

Re: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Venkata Nanduri 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Hi, I think existing Annex - I in H.245 is written much before RFC3267 is written and hence it out of sync in content. The RTP format mentioned in Annex - I is different from what is mentioned in RFC3267. Even if we want to incorporate this material in existing Annex - I, it will be like replacing the entire Annex - I content with the new content.. Thanks Venkata At 07:50 PM 1/25/2005 -0500, Dave Lindbergh wrote: >Is there a reason why this needs to be a separate Annex to H.245? I'd >prefer to incorporate this material into an existing Annex, just to reduce >the amount of clutter in H.245. > >--Dave > >At 05:32 PM 1/24/2005, Venkata Nanduri wrote: >>Dear SG16 experts, >> >>I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of >>SG16 group to be held at >>Melbourne in February last week, 2005. >> >>Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early >>feedback on the proposal >>from experts in the group. >> >>Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? >> >>Thanks >>Venkata > >---------- >Dave Lindbergh >Polycom, Inc. >100 Minuteman Road >Andover MA 01810 USA >Voice: +1 978 292 5366 >Email: lindbergh(a)92F1.com >H.320, H.323 video by arrangement

1 0

Re: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Dave Lindbergh 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Is there a reason why this needs to be a separate Annex to H.245? I'd prefer to incorporate this material into an existing Annex, just to reduce the amount of clutter in H.245. --Dave At 05:32 PM 1/24/2005, Venkata Nanduri wrote: >Dear SG16 experts, > >I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of SG16 >group to be held at >Melbourne in February last week, 2005. > >Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early >feedback on the proposal >from experts in the group. > >Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? > >Thanks >Venkata ---------- Dave Lindbergh Polycom, Inc. 100 Minuteman Road Andover MA 01810 USA Voice: +1 978 292 5366 Email: lindbergh(a)92F1.com H.320, H.323 video by arrangement

1 0

RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Venkata Nanduri 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Hi, Please see in line..... Look for vnanduri At 03:47 PM 1/25/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi(a)nokia.com wrote: >hello Venkata, > >Thanks for preparing the document. > >I have more or less the same comment as Roni Even already made: >There seems to be no parameters for controlling the "crc" and >"robust-sorting" options available in RFC 3267. Are these options somehow >problematic in the scope of H.245? <vnanduri> In-order to apply CRC, interleaving and robust-sorting , frame format shall be octet aligned. Since there is a dependency among different parameters, octetAlign parameter is defined in H245 which also handles CRC and robust-sorting. May be I need to rename this octetAlign parameter to something that is meaningful for octetAlign, CRC and robust-sorting (Any suggestions??) The presence of octetAlign parameter itself indicates octet aligned frame format. The octetAlign parameter is defined as booleanArray to take care of CRC and robust-sorting values. Bit 0 is used for CRC and Bit 1 for robust-sorting. But, interleaving can also be only applied if the frame format is octet-aligned and the value for interleaving is number of frame blocks which cannot be defined as part of booleanArray. So, a new parameter is defined. Interleaving parameter shall be absent if octetAlign parameter is absent. The main intention of consolidating the parameters is to minimize the bits that will be transmitted across the wire... >Another question is about the definition of the capability parameter modeSet. >Currently the draft specifies that > > "... If present, specifies the subset of modes available for current > session. If absent, no modes are supported." > >However, in RFC 3267 the definition of the corresponding MIME parameter says > "... If not present, all codec modes are allowed for the session." > >Maybe it would be clearer to use the same interpretation as in RFC 3267 in >case the paramter modeSet is not present? <vnanduri> For some of the parameters defined in RFC3267, similar parameters are defined with a different interpretation in H.245 to take care of conference scenarios. Please look below for details about why they are defined differently in H.245: 1) octet-align(SDP) -------->octetAlign--booleanArray (also accommodates crc and robust-sorting)(H.245) described above 2) mode-set(SDP) ---------->modeSet and modeSetExtended. modeSetExtended is used only AMR-WB(H245) modeSet is defined as booleanArray which can accommodate only 8 boolean values. Since AMR-NB has only 8 bit rates, modeSet parameter will be sufficient for AMR-NB. How ever, since AMR-WB has 9 modes, first 8 modes will be accommodated in modeSet parameter and 9th mode will be accommodated in modeSetExtended parameter. Suppose an MC that is not aware of AMR codec capability, gets this capability from three endpoints A, B and C and wants to create a common capability description. Suppose A sends no modeSet, B sends a modeSet with 10000011 and C sends a modeSet with 10000001. Now, a common capability description should contain the modeSet as 10000001. But the MC has to ignore those parameters that are not supported by all endpoints. So the MC will send out a cap description without a modeSet, which will imply support for all modes, which is not the expected behavior. So, absence of this parameter is defined as lack of support of any modes. The same comment applies for modeSetExtended - the absence of the parameter should indicate lack of support for the 9th mode, and this parameter should be present if the 9th mode is supported. 3) mode-change-period(SDP) ----->modeChangePeriod(H245). For modeChangePeriod, for example, if A sent a period of 5, B sent 3 and C did not send anything, the common cap description prepared by the MC will not contain a modeChangePeriod. So A, which could only change modes once in 5 frames will now receive audio that may changes mode at every frame which is not the expected behavior. Hence, this parameter is made mandatory and is defined as unsignedMax which indicates to MC that it has to select the largest value it receives from different end points. With this definition in H.245 Now, C has to send 0 as the value, and MC will select 5 which is the appropriate value. 4) mode-change-neighbor(SDP) -----> modeChangeAll(H245) For example, if A did not send, B sent with value 1, C sent value of 0, Again, an MC that does not include the value because one endpoint did not include. It will be creating a common capability description that indicates permission to switch to any mode(absence of param from A or a value 0 from C). Again this is not the expected behavior. So, this parameter is defined as 'ModeChangeAll'. The presence of this parameter means 'change from any to any mode is permitted'. Then if a combining MC creates a cap description that does not have ModeChangeAll (because one endpoint did not send it), it will be correctly forcing all endpoints to the common subset which is change to neighboring modes only is permitted'. 5) maxptime(SDP) ----------> alAduFrames(H.245) 6) ptime(DSP)-------> alAduFrames(H245) numFrames parameter will correspond to the value for maxptime when used in TCS messages and will correspond to value for ptime when used in OLC and MR messages. 7) crc(SDP) -----------> octetAlign(H.245) described above 8) robust-sorting(SDP) ------> octetAlign(H.245) described above 9) interleaving(SDP) -----> interleaving(H.245) described above 10) channels(SDP) -----> numChannels(H245) Same as SDP Please let me know if you have any other questions... Thanks Venkata >BR, >Ari Lakaniemi >Nokia Research Center > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] > > Sent: 25 January, 2005 10:10 > > To: Venkata Nanduri; itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; Lakaniemi Ari > > (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > > Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > > > Hi, > > I just scanned through the draft. I noticed that there is no full > > mapping of the SDP parameters from RFC3267 to generic parameters. Is > > there a reason for the difference. > > I think that there should be some text that will explain the > > relationship to H.245 annex I. > > Roni Even > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 AM > > To: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi(a)NOKIA.COM > > Cc: vnanduri(a)cisco.com > > Subject: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 > > > > Dear SG16 experts, > > > > I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of > > SG16 > > group to be held at > > Melbourne in February last week, 2005. > > > > Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early > > feedback on the proposal > > from experts in the group. > > > > Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? > > > > Thanks > > Venkata > >

1 0

RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Even, Roni 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Hi, I just scanned through the draft. I noticed that there is no full mapping of the SDP parameters from RFC3267 to generic parameters. Is there a reason for the difference. I think that there should be some text that will explain the relationship to H.245 annex I. Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 AM To: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi(a)NOKIA.COM Cc: vnanduri(a)cisco.com Subject: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267 Dear SG16 experts, I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of SG16 group to be held at Melbourne in February last week, 2005. Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early feedback on the proposal from experts in the group. Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? Thanks Venkata

1 0

Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
by Venkata Nanduri 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Dear SG16 experts, I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of SG16 group to be held at Melbourne in February last week, 2005. Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early feedback on the proposal from experts in the group. Can you please review the document and let me know your comments? Thanks Venkata

1 0

Meeting Announcement Joined session Q.29/16 with SG19 in Melbour
by Leo.Lehmann＠bakom.admin.ch 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Dear experts and colleagues, I have the pleasure to announce a joined session of Q.29/16 together with SG19 during our WP2 Rapporteuer Meeting in Melbourne. SG19 will held an Rapporteuer meeting from March 1st until March 3rd 2005 also in Melbourne. This givese a good opportunity for the exchange and handling of questions on mobility of SG16 and SG19. Unfortunally SG16/WP2 and SG19 uses different meeting locations in Melbourne, which are about 2 hours driving time away from each other. So far one joined session is planned on morning March 1st at SG19 meeting place with WP2 participants , the other on March 2nd at WP2/16 meeting place with SG16 participants. Topics for this joined meeting will be so far - Consolidation of Mobility definitions - new Revision of Technical report on combined mobility betewwen H.323 systems and GPRS/UMTS networks - Further issues Regarding the first both items I am expecting two contributions until beginning of February. If you would like to send further contributions for this Session, please do not hesitate to bring them up until February 12th 2005. If you are interested to participate in the session at the SG19 meeting place, please send the attached registration to 'Leslie.Graf(a)ericsson.com'and please let me also know for information. Best regards Leo Leo Lehmann Rapporteur Q.29/16 Federal Office of Communication (OFCOM) Biel-Bienne Switzerland Tel: +41 32 327 5752 __________________________________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Lehmann, At 11:45 +0100 05/01/24, Leo.Lehmann(a)bakom.admin.ch wrote: >I had a telefon conversation with Mr Probst. As this is a good >opportunity for Questions on mobility of SG16 and >SG19 to meet, Mr Probst fully support an additional setting of a >Q.29/16 meeting in Melbourne to enable a joined session with SG19 >qusetions. Thank you very much. Please publicize the Melbourne sessions on mobility through the mailing list. -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ****************************************************************** Dear Mr Okubo, I had a telefon conversation with Mr Probst. As this is a good opportunity for Questions on mobility of SG16 and SG19 to meet, Mr Probst fully support an additional setting of a Q.29/16 meeting in Melbourne to enable a joined session with SG19 qusetions. Best regards Leo -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: OKUBO Sakae [mailto:okubo@mxz.mesh.ne.jp] Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Januar 2005 17:57 An: Lehmann Leo Cc: Simao Campos-Neto Betreff: Fwd:Re: Fwd:Q.29 interim meeting/joint meeting with SG19 Dear Mr. Lehmann, I have received the following auto-reply to my message seeking his agreement. Could you please kindly get in touch with him via the advised mobile phone and convey our request? It would be too late if we start after 30 March. >From: probst-pa(a)bluewin.ch >Subject: Re: Fwd:Q.29 interim meeting/joint meeting with SG19 >To: okubo(a)mxz.mesh.ne.jp >Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:43:56 +0000 >Delivered-To: probst-pa(a)bluewin.ch >X-Biglobe-VirusCheck: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:43:59 +0900 > >Thank you very much for your message. >I am away from my office for two weeks and will process your mail only >later (30.1.2005). For urgent issues, you have the possibility to reach >me on my mobile >phone: +41 79 229 96 56. > >Best regards, > >P.A.Probst -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: OKUBO Sakae [mailto:okubo@mxz.mesh.ne.jp] Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Januar 2005 17:44 An: Pierre-Andre PROBST Cc: Istvan Sebestyen; Simao Campos-Neto; Lehmann Leo; Christian Groves Betreff: Fwd:Q.29 interim meeting/joint meeting with SG19 Dear Mr. Probst, This is to seek your agreement on that Q.29 will meet in Melbourne early March as requested by Mr. Lehmann. Strictly speaking, the WP2/16 report of last SG16 meeting says that Q.29 will meet only in May and the current SG16 web page <http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/meetings.html> also indicates so. As this is a good opportunity for Questions on mobility of SG16 and SG19 to meet, I hope you could accept this additional setting. Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ****************************************************************** -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: John Visser [mailto:jvisser@nortelnetworks.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2005 16:56 An: David.Mcfarlane(a)nokia.com; 'Farrokh Khatibi'; 'Felix,Zhang'; 'leo.lehmann(a)bakom.admin.ch' Cc: peter.m.adams(a)bt.com; Leslie Graf; tatiana.kurakova(a)itu.int Betreff: RE: documents for joint rapporteurs meeting Colleagues: I think everyone is aware of Q.29/16 "Mobility for Multimedia Systems and Services" http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/sg16-q29. Leo Lehman is the Rapporteur and he and I have had several discussions on how best to coordinate our mobility studies. Q.2 and 5/19 and Q.6/13 are meeting jointly in Melbourne 1-3 March. Q.29/16 is meeting in Marysville the week of 28 Feb. Marysville is about 2 hours drive outside Melbourne. In my discussions with Leo, we addressed how best to coordinate our work and we came up with the following proposal: Tuesday, 1 March, Leo (and possibly others) would come to Melbourne for the afternoon to take part in the Q.2 and 5/19 and Q.6/13 joint discussions. The objective would be to identify mobility-related definitions and terminology and work towards alignment so that these would be common across all mobility discussions. I anticipate that Leo would also be willing to provide an overview of the Work of Q.5/16 in the previous study period, and the current work anticipated in Q.29/16. Wednesday, 2 March, I (and possibly others) would go to Marysville to sit in on the Q.29/16 discussions. The objective would be to support alignment on mobility-related definitions and terminology from the previous day. I anticipate that I would also provide an overview of the work of Q.2 and 5/19 and Q.6/13. I would appreciate any comments and concerns from you prior to formalizing this further (though we don't want to get very formal at a rapporteurs' meeting.) Regards, John John Visser, P.Eng. Chairman, ITU-T SG 19 "Mobile Telecommunication Networks" http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com19 Phone: +1-613-763-7028 Fax: +1-613-763-2697 Mobile: +1-613-276-6096 Email: jvisser(a)nortel.com

1 0