- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H.323 QOS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Hi, Mike: Further to my earlier (enclosed) email, I like to mention that H.323 QOS is also addressing problems where a single network may have different kinds of network layer QOS signaling schemes. For example, an IP network may have different domains where one domain implements RSVP, the other domain implements DiffServ, and the another domain implements MPLS, etc. H.323 QOS will provide the end-to-end "application" layer QOS signaling mechanism that is universal from end users' point of view no matter whether there are multiple networks (e.g., IP, ATM), or whether one network that implements heterogeneous "network" layer QOS (e.g., RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, etc.) schemes. By the way, the Appendix of H.323 Annex N has almost all the answers. I strongly believe, as explained in the earlier email per your questions (enclosed), that we have all the solution ready to use. If you have any questions, please also ask me, the past editor Rich Bowen, or others who have been working bringing contributions related to H.323 QOS problems. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:47 PM To: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: RE: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Please see my response stated below [RRR]. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 1:24 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, Sorry , I am not following your arguments here. I thought your Table 1 was a description of the QoS requirements and media stream properties that would be signalled by the application/service provider to the network operator. This is transport QoS mechansm independent. [RRR] Certainly it is NOT the case. It is H.323, and nothing to do with service providers or network operators. H.323 spec only deals with the application on end-to-end basis. I maintain that the media statistic parameters can not in general be signalled on a per media stream basis. Only peak bit rate has any meaning to the application and derives from the choice of codec and packetisation arrangements. [RRR] It is NOT true. Please see H.245 spec how each medium is signaled along with QOS parameters (e.g., RSVP, ATM QOS). It already exits in H.323/H.245 on end-to-end basis if there is only one kind of network. We are just extending the same concept on end-to-end basis if there is one or multiple networks. If there is only one network either IP or ATM, H.323 QOS does NOT need any additional work per se. For IP network, H.323 provides the support of RSVP and more work may be needed if DiffServ or MPLS needs to be supported. For ATM QOS, H.323 QOS spec is also complete. But if there are combinations of IP and ATM (and/or other networks), there is no end-to-end H.323 QOS signaling mechanism that can be used as an universal set across all networks. In fact, as I told before, we are SOLVING this problem in H..323 Annex N. In agree the values in the Table do not need to be specified in the protocol. I am happy with YES/NO/Value with Value being optional in the case of YES. [RRR] I am glad to hear that we are in agreement here. >So, the first problem is to express performance/QOS parameters that do NOT >contain any values. That is, it will have only the parameters without any >value. For example, all audio/video codecs will have their parameters >expressed that will have only a limited set (in the previous case as can be >seen in Appendix of Annex N - there has been only 4 sets, etc.). These are >universal sets and does not matter what the codec type is. You have lost me here. What is the point signalling empty sets? [RRR] Please see the Appendix of H.323 Annex N how the QOS classes and the corresponding signaling messages have been created, and how the signaling will be done. There are two stages of H.313 QOS signaling: 1. Pre-call setup phase and 2. Call setup phase. In pre-call setup, it is the empty signaling messages sets that will be sent to determine whether these kind of QOS classes are supported on end-to-end basis. It is called the discovery phase. So far, it has been the ONLY goal for H.323 QOS. [RRR] For the call setup phase, the actual values of all those parameters are needed. We expect that the values can be chosen by endusers if there are no standards. However, if other SGs or forums (e.g., TIPHON, IMTC, SLA agreements, etc.) define those values, people can also use those specific values. Then the H.323 QOS signaling messages can use those implementation specific values. H.323 QOS will only have the place holder for those values. The order of events must surely be: [RRR] the order of events are shown in Appendix of H.323 Annex N. a) User requests QoS level of service provider: gold, silver etc. [RRR] Again, this is implementation specific and SG16 is not the right place to define gold, silver, etc. for H.323. b) Application uses H.225.0 and H.245 to establish compatible codecs and packetisation arrangements consistent with a), [RRR] H.245 is currently using RSVP and ATM QOS and we will use the similar approach. No new work is needed here. c) Application computes delay, delay variation and bit error rate required of transport network and signalls these to transport network operator. [RRR] We do not need to do anything NEW other than the similar thing what H.245 is doing currently for RSVP and ATM QOS. H.225.0 and h.245 will be used to: a) register a terminal's QoS characteristics with the service provider (gatekeeper). [RRR] H.323 does not define anything related to service providers, application providers, or network providers. It is implementation specific. It will only deal with the H.323 QOS signaling messages on end-to-end basis as it has been dong for RSVP and ATM QOS. Let other SGs or forums do some implementation specific agreement/standard for H.323 QOS. b) for user to request gold, silver or bronze or the end to end QoS parameters from a service provider (gatekeeper), [RRR] Again, it is an implementation issue, not a H.323 QOS protocol issue: gold, silver, etc. My response for item a is applicable. c) for service providers (gatekeepers) to signal QoS parameters to each other to enable end to end QoS levels to be achieved. [RRR] Again a GK can signal QOS parameters, but H.323 does not recognize service providers, applications providers, or network providers. However, the GK will signal using the H.323 QOS messages. The QOS signaling messages will contain many parameters (I do not think that it will contain QOS level per se). d) to establish compatible codecs and packetisation at both ends of a media stream. [RRR] H.245 has well established negotiation capabilities. We do not need to do any additional work here. Registration will take place prior to call set up. The rest of the QoS information flows must take place at call set up. [RRR] Please see my answers provided above. Currently, Appendix of H.323 Annex N has it completed how the pre-call setup signaling messages can be exchanged. The call setup phase will use the same mechanism as it exists today for RSVP and ATM QOS. We will only augment this using NEW parameters of H.323 QOS. We need a new protocol for signalling QoS requirements and authorisations to the network operator. [RRR] The pre-call setup and call setup phase that will use H.323 QOS messages (as shown in Appendix of H.323 QOS) will meet the QOS requirements. I do not think that we should "INVENT" any new security mechanisms ONLY specific to H.323 QOS. Security should be dealt for H.323 in general. This work MUST be de-coupled from H.323 QOS. Let's continue the debate on this lists - this is the best way of arriving at an agreed approach. Documenting it once we have agreement on what the problem is and how we are going to solve it should be quite straightforward. I hope we will have something to determine in November. [RRR] Yes, this has been the main purpose of my email. Moreover, emails go to all people throughout the whole world. Each one of us can participate. This is the MOST convenient way for resolving issues. I appreciate your response. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 5:09 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Please note the following: Table 1 shows all parameters that are observed in digitization form. (There may be similarity with some transport level parameters, but these are expressed in a transport independent way.) A given codec/data (appln.) may or may have all the parameters. If not, those parameters will be NOT be used. Each parameter contain: Yes/No and Value. So, the first problem is to express performance/QOS parameters that do NOT contain any values. That is, it will have only the parameters without any value. For example, all audio/video codecs will have their parameters expressed that will have only a limited set (in the previous case as can be seen in Appendix of Annex N - there has been only 4 sets, etc.). These are universal sets and does not matter what the codec type is. In H.323, we are NOT defining values of the parameters because values are subjective and implementation dependent. The values of any given QOS parameter or a set of QOS parameters are beyond the scope of H.323 (Q.13/16). The values are being defined in other SGs or organizations (e.g., TIPHON, IMTC, etc.). You are right that the values for each codec will be different. People may define many classes based on values as well. For example, 100ms delay is gold service, 150ms delay is silver service, etc. In Annex N, we will not be addressing those values. The same is also true for data. Defining of QOS values of any given parameters is OUT of scope of H.323. It appears that there is a mis-understanding. I do not any intention for any personal attack other than to complete the work on time (if it appears so, I apologize for this). Hope this clarifies your questions. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:08 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, >The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each >medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the >underlying transport network (or networks) is. >The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. We agree on the first paragraph. The problem I have with your Table 1 relates to media statistics (see my earlier comments). Incidentally the columns are the properties of transport media streams. the values will be dependent on media type, codec, packetisation etc. So I am not sure what the relevance of codec or T.120 is in the heading. The parameters in each column are what I regard as the generic bearer descriptor. >Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each >medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their >requirements. >This is the simple problem. The values follow from the users QoS service request, and the choices made by the application in achieving this (codec type, packetisation, jitter buffer design). Once the application has figured out what these parameters are then the entries in your table can be computed by the application and flagged to the transport operator on a domain by domain basis or end-to-end if there is one homogeneous transport space. >A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as >H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I see no conflict with the use of these transport mechanisms in the transport plane. You seem terribly worried about this. What is the problem? >I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar >with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top >of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very >short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and >losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. >If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. You are putting words into my mouth here that I never used. Why the personal attack? I thought the discussion had been quite constructive up to this point. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:41 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the underlying transport network (or networks) is. The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their requirements. This is the simple problem. A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. I like to see other members also provide comments on this. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:01 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, I think we are in total agreement until your last two paragraphs. Lets figure out what problem we are solving and what we need to do to achieve this, then examine the issues of backward compatibility. You are a lot more familiar than I am with the existing H.323 mechansims. Why are these not transport mechansm independent as per your model? Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Let me try again. What is the reference point of H.323 QOS? Is it not H.323? If it is so, what do we mean by H.323? The answer is: Audio (different codecs), Video (different codecs), and Data (T.120 applications) that are used by H.323. What are the QOS/performance characteristics of audio, video, and data from the application point of view that is generated by audio codecs, video codecs, and data (T.120) applications? These QOS/performance characteristics come from the SOURCE codecs and data applications. Per transport independent H.323 specifications, an enduser express their QOS/performance requirements on end-to-end basis purely from application point of view irrespective of the transport network (e.g., IP, ATM, etc.). Moreover, H.323 is meant for the packet network, not for any circuit-switched network like PSTN or ISDN. Let us NOT go beyond this before we start debating transport layer QOS or service provider requirements. These are NOT the concern of H.323. H.323 is the transport independent application. H.323v2/v3/v4 has also provided mechanisms how RSVP and ATM QOS can be used for H.323 audio, video, and data. So, H.323 QOS that will be defined in H.323 Annex N MUST provide mapping for the backward compatibility. It is a requirement that MUST be met per the norm of ITU-T. So, what is left for mapping? Mapping is simply a by-product of the above requirement. Mapping is simply a table, nothing else. Did I miss anything? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:19 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, Thanks for the input which I welcome as I will unfortunately not be present at Portland. Let me ask a few questions and make a few comments hopefully with the intent of opening up the debate. 1. I am not sure I understand your concept of a mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QoS. My understanding is that QoS is on three levels: a) that specified from a service point of view between the user and service provider (e.g PSTN quality, conference quality etc) This is the domain of the speech experts and can be characterised by Listener Speech Quaklity (MOS), end to end delay, and absolute category rating, R. b) application specific parameters, (e.g. equipment delays, codec choice and performance, codec frame size, packetisation arrangements, jitter buffer design, overall packet loss etc.) Optimisation of all these will determine what can be delivered in a). c) transport parameters for a given choice of application parameters. This boils down only to three parameters as far as I cna see: tranport network delay, packet delay variation in the transport network and packet loss in the transport network. Again these parameters will determine the results in a) for a given choice of the parameters in b). These parameters are generic from the perspective of the transport network. i.e the transport network does not need to know the details of the application. So the sequence of cause and effect and control is: a) User requests QoS class from service provider, b) Service provider determines application specific parameters in conjunction with users equipment and other service providers, c) Service provider requests required delay, delay variation and packet loss from network provider. I see no need for mapping here. The only QoS info flows within the application are specific to the application and those between the application (service provider) and the transport network are generic. i.e. delay, jitter and packet loss. Have I missed something? 2. The issue of bit rate and media stream statistics I think need to be decoupled from QoS. These are specified to enable optimisation of resources within the transport network. They have no QoS significance from an application point of view. i.e the apllication does not care about the media stream bit rate and statistics but the transport network provider does as it eats up his resource. They may be used for policy enforcement however in the transport network so they do need to be agreed between service provider and network operator. i.e the network operator agrees to provide a given QoS level (delay, jitter, packet loss) provided the media properties are within an agreed profile (bit rate, flow statistics). 3. The next point is how can the service provider know the statistics of a particular VBR stream? These can only be specified over a large number of similar calls and will depend, for instance, on who is speaking, the nature of the speech interaction etc etc. They can only be measured not calculated. The service provider is in no better position to measure these than the transport network operator and, in fact, where no gateways are involved, may not be able to. On the other hand the class of signal would have to be signalled to the network operator for him to be able to distinguish which class a particular measurement belonged to. e.g voice/speech/data, codec type, conference, multicast etc. So I see no purpose in trying to exchange statistics between the service provider (application) and transport operator. I think peak bit rate is all that can be meaningfully excanged. The specification of media class is however perhaps worth exploring. 4. The controlled category has always puzzled me. I only see two possibilities. Either the requested QoS level is guaranteed (on a statistical basis e.g 95% of all connections over a specified period) or not guaranteed. Is your controlled category a way of saying guaranteed, not to 95% but to some lower figure? If you can't put a percentage on it then it seems it is plain and simple not guaranteed. Anything that is not guaranteed to some specified statistical level is best effort and you can't say anything more about it. So I only see two categories here. In summary, I think we need to do three things in Annex N. a) Figure out the QoS information to be exchanged within the Application between service providers and end users. This will go in H.225.0 and H.245. b) Figure out how we are going to signal QoS and media information between the application (service providers) and transport domains (IP or ATM networks etc). The info is basically delay, jitter, packet loss requirements and peak bit rate. We need a protocol for this. c) we need to work out the interactions between the application QoS signal flows and the application/transport signal flows. I don't think we need worry about how the transport network mechanisms assure the requested QoS paramerters. RSVP/Intserv, Diffserv, MPLS, ATM, over provisioning are all possibilities. Would welcome comments and views on the above. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:15 PM Subject: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike and All: It is time to discuss about H.323 QOS. I believe that we have an agreement as follows: · H.323 QOS MUST be backward compatible to support RSVP and ATM QOS as it exists for H.323v2/v3/v4 · Like H.323 spec, the application level H.323 QOS MUST be independent of the transport layer QOS and should support all transport networks (e.g., IP, ATM) · A mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QOS (e.g., IP QOS [DiffServ, RSVP, etc.], ATM QOS [CBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VBR, ABR, etc.]) should be provided. >From the H.323 multimedia application point of view, there are following performance parameters can be used to characterize the traffic characteristics: · Bitrate characteristics: Peak bit rate (PBR) or peak rate (PR), Sustained bit rate (SBR) or average rate (AR), minimum bit rate (MBR) or minimum rate (MR), and mean bust size (MBS) · Delay and loss characteristics: end-to-end delay (EED) or delay, end-to-end delay variation (EEDV) or delay variation (DV), and bit-error-rate (BER) or (packet) loss rate (LR) We can now form a table with all parameters as follows: Table 1: H.323 Multimedia Application Performance Matrix Audio (codecs)--- Video (codecs)--- Data (T.120) PBR/PR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value SBR/AR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBR/MR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBS Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EED/Delay Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EEDV/DV Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value BER/LR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value >From the above table we will have the opportunity to choose each parameter for each medium (audio, video, data) that makes sense from the application's and enduser's point of view. Again, these parameters can be specified as follows: · Guaranteed: The value specified for each parameter MUST be guaranteed. · Controlled: The value specified for each parameter MAY be satisfied as far as practicable (possibly with certain range), but definitely NOT guaranteed. · Best effort: No commitment will be made. Now each medium (e.g., audio, video, or data) will have different categories of performance matrix depending on its selection criteria and this can also be mapped to RSVP, ATM QOS, and others, if needed. Once we agree on this format, the next step is to create H.323 QOS signaling messages. This is my input for discussion in the upcoming Portland Q.13 meeting for H.323 QOS. I like to see the comments from other members as well. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

H.323 Mobility
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Hi, Everyone: In addition to uploading of the contributions, I feel that it would be better we could start email discussion on these contributions if possible. It may save time in the upcoming Portland meeting. In this connection, I am enclosing the summary of the two contributions as follows: APC-1932: Comments on H.323 Annex H (MTD-101b) Abstract Comments on H.323 Annex H have been provided to modify the text and figures of MTD-101b. The comments have been provided in two categories: General and Specific. The general comments are applicable for the entire document while the specific comments are to be considered case by case basis for each section. It has been clearly mentioned how AT&T contributions APC-1926, D.354, APC-1770, and others can be used to take care of all comments. These comments were also provided to the SG16 email reflector, and it is believed that these comments were accepted because no counter technical arguments were received in the email reflector explaining the fact why these comments were not acceptable. APC-1926: H.323 Intra-Zone Mobility Management using the AuF and HLF Abstract We have discussed how the network address (e.g., IP address) can be acquired using different mechanisms (e.g., DHCP, mobile IP, or other schemes) by an H.323 mobile entity if it moves from one place to another. Once the network address is obtained after being connected to a network, it can listen to the mobile gatekeeper advertisement (MGA) message for discovering the GK in a well-known multicast port (alternatively, the GRQ message can also be sent to discover the GK). If needed, the MGA can also be unicast to the mobile entity although the process may not be so dynamic as in the case of the multicast. We have shown that a new GK advertisement message (MGA) [3] is the most efficient way of discovering the GK in a highly as well as relatively less mobile environment: Cell-based wireless network, wireless LAN, and/or wire-line network. In addition, the extended GRQ/GCF/GRJ [3] messages can also be used in certain situations when MGA message is not received within certain time interval. The combination of the MGA and GRQ message scheme makes the GK discovery most efficient and reliable for mobile communications environments. It has been clearly depicted how the extended RRQ [3] message needs to be used to take care of many options that a mobile entity may like to use for service provisioning in static mode because the mobility service related parameters need to be stored in the HLF. In this situation, a GK needs to access the HLF directly, and does NOT need to use the VLF. The direct communications between the home GK and the HLF may also be needed for storing and retrieving the mobility related information when the mobile remains in its home network point of attachment (home-NPoA) or if it moves from its home network to a foreign (visiting/target) network in its home zone because an H.323 mobile entity that remains within a home zone is NOT considered a "visitor" or "foreigner" by the home GK. The primary services that are needed are the discovery of the mobile gatekeepers (GKs), registration with the GK by the mobile entities, location updates for mobile's visiting, home, and visited network address along with interaction of the authentication function (AuF) and home location function (HLF) as the mobile entity changes its point of attachments (e.g., network point of attachment). We have discussed some issues as follows: Should we include the service related profile in the RRQ message for dynamically service provisioning in the HLF and new messages between the GK and AuF/HLF? Finally, we have shown communications message flows for location updates for intra-zone communications to mange the mobility of mobile entities. It may be observed that the communications to the AuF and HLF entities are performed via the GK. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:47 AM To: 'Sakae OKUBO' Subject: APC-1926 and APC-1932 Dear Mr. OKUBO; Kindly upload the enclosed APCs (APC-1926 and APC-1932). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Uploaded contributions 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914
by Christian Groves 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Dear SG 16 experts, Contributions: APC-1910 LM Ericsson Addition to Implementor's guide to H.248 APC-1911 LM Ericsson Change of Capabilities indicated in H.248 ServiceChange APC-1912 LM Ericsson H.248 Annex L - Error Code and Service Change Reason Description APC-1913 LM Ericsson Improved Auditing in H.248 Version 2 APC-1914 LM Ericsson Comments to H.248 Annex K Have been uploaded to the incoming directory on the Pictel site. Cheers, Christian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

InterScan eManager Content Management Notification! (Block Html)
by virus-protection＠BOSCH.COM 13 Aug '00

13 Aug '00

******Message from InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT****** The following mail was blocked by InterScan eManager Content Management. Source mailbox: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Destination mailbox(es): <Marek.Przybyszewski(a)DE.BOSCH.COM> Policy: Block Html Action: Delete HTML with active content detected and because of high virus risk deleted; HTML Mail mit aktiven Inhalt gefunden und aufgrund hoher Virengefahr gelöscht. ******************* End of message ******************* Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gwa.fe.bosch.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA10387 for <Marek.Przybyszewski(a)DE.BOSCH.COM>; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:31:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com( 192.102.199.72) by gwa.fe.bosch.de via smap (V2.1) id xma010364; Sun, 13 Aug 00 02:31:11 +0200 Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA29954; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 242419 for ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:25:46 -0700 Received: from serwer.net2000.pl (serwer.net2000.pl [212.244.211.2]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA29931 for <itu-sg16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host (quincy-ip-3-160.dynamic.ziplink.net [206.15.159.160]) by serwer.net2000.pl (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id CAA02743; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:06:25 +0200 X-Mailer: DiffondiCool V3,1,6,0 (W95/NT) (Build: Oct 18 1999) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <200008130006.CAA02743(a)serwer.net2000.pl> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:45:14 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sender: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> From: Randy Gregory <yyz83(a)MAIL1ST.COM> Subject: Our Top List #6C73 Comments: To: join39k(a)serwer.net2000.pl To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com

1 0

InterScan eManager Content Management Notification! (Block Html)
by virus-protection＠BOSCH.COM 13 Aug '00

13 Aug '00

******Message from InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT****** The following mail was blocked by InterScan eManager Content Management. Source mailbox: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Destination mailbox(es): <Monika.Harwardt(a)TENOVIS.COM>,<Bjoern.Soelch(a)TENOVIS.COM>,<Axel.Niebuhr(a)TENOVIS.COM> Policy: Block Html Action: Delete HTML with active content detected and because of high virus risk deleted; HTML Mail mit aktiven Inhalt gefunden und aufgrund hoher Virengefahr gelöscht. ******************* End of message ******************* Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gwa2.fe.bosch.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA02759; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:28:27 GMT Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com( 192.102.199.72) by gwa2.fe.bosch.de via smap (V2.1) id xma002752; Sun, 13 Aug 00 00:28:14 GMT Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA29963; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 242419 for ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:25:46 -0700 Received: from serwer.net2000.pl (serwer.net2000.pl [212.244.211.2]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA29931 for <itu-sg16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host (quincy-ip-3-160.dynamic.ziplink.net [206.15.159.160]) by serwer.net2000.pl (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id CAA02743; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:06:25 +0200 X-Mailer: DiffondiCool V3,1,6,0 (W95/NT) (Build: Oct 18 1999) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <200008130006.CAA02743(a)serwer.net2000.pl> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:45:14 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sender: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> From: Randy Gregory <yyz83(a)MAIL1ST.COM> Subject: Our Top List #6C73 Comments: To: join39k(a)serwer.net2000.pl To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com

1 0

APC-1945 H.248 Annex F fax/text/call discrimination status and white draft submitted
by Gunnar Hellstrom 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

Dear all, I have placed document APC-1945 for the Portland Q.12-Q.14 meeting in the Incoming directory of the Pictel avc-site. I hope it will appear soon in the 0008_Por directory for the meeting. Title: H.248 Annex F fax/text/call discrimination, status and white draft. Source: Editor ( Gunnar Hellström, Ericsson ) Document for: Information The document is already sent as a white draft to ITU. The reason to enter the document in this meeting is merely to clarify the status since there are other contributions to H.248 Annex F. ----------------------------Copy of first page of APC-1945:--------------------------------- Status: This document contains the white draft H.248 Annex F. facsimile, text conversation and call discrimination packages. 1. After the determination in February 2000, small modifications have been requested by Q14/16, Q4/8, Q9/16 and Q4/1. They are incorporated. 2. The document was handled by Q.4/8 in a meeting in June. The resulting comments can be found in APC-1890 and APC-1892 issued by Q.4/8 representatives. 3. The document was handled by Q.4/16, Q.9/16 and WP1/16 in a meeting in Edinburgh in June. 4. The contents of documents APC-1890 and APC-1892 proposing modifications for the facsimile parts were available at that meeting and all proposed changes were incorporated. 5. To the knowledge of the editor, also the contents of APC-1891 T.38 Appendix V- is in line with the current edition of H.248 Annex F. 6. Possible extensions to fully cover data modem discrimination, session establishment and transport were briefly discussed in Q.4/16. No action was taken because of lack of contributions. It should be noted that the current document contains full functionality for the modem negotiation and can therefore be extended by other packages to also cover the modulation and transport of data modem traffic. 7. The document has also been converted to pure text format and entered as an Internet Draft to IETF as draft-ietf-megaco-h248f-00.txt Included here is the white draft as sent to the TSB for decision in the Study Group 16 meeting in November. -------------end of excerpt--------------------------------- Regards ------------------------------------------ Gunnar Hellstrom LM Ericsson E-mail gunnar.hellstrom(a)omnitor.se Tel +46 8 556 002 03 Mob +46 708 204 288 fax +46 8 556 002 06 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: APC for draft H.225.0 v4
by Sakae OKUBO 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

Dear contributors and all, APC numbers have been allocated to your contributions as attached. This list is close to final. Please take a look at it and advise me if your contribution is not included. This list is uploaded as /0008_Por/0008_Por.doc and /0008_Por/0008_Por.html Best regards, Sakae OKUBO *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 (to be transferred) +81 3 3204 8194 (direct) Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp *********************************************************** Contributions for the Q12-14/16 Rapporteur meeting in Portland (21 -25 August 2000) ------< carried over from the Osaka meeting >------ APC-1765 AT&T Scope of H.323 QOS APC-1766 AT&T Requirements of H.323 QOS APC-1767 AT&T Architecture of H.323 QOS APC-1768 AT&T Specification of H.323 QOS Characteristics APC-1796 Editor (M Fortinsky) H.225.0 Annex G version1 - with corrections ------< registration for the Portland meeting >------ APC-1872 Q22/11 Liaison to SG16 On Interaction Between Intelligent Network Systems and H.248 APC-1873 Q22/11 Liaison to SG16 On Interworking Between H.323 Systems and Intelligent Network Systems APC-1874 Editor (P Jones) Draft H.323 version 4 APC-1875 Editor (P Jones) H.323-series Implementers Guide APC-1876 Editor (K Klaghofer) Draft Call Offer Supplementary Service for H.323 APC-1877 Editor (K Klaghofer) Draft Call Intrusion Supplementary Service for H.323 APC-1878 Editor (T Anderson) Draft H.323 Annex R (Robustness) APC-1879 Lucent Technologies Reference Points for the Use of Annex G APC-1880 Editor (F Audet) H.323 Annex M.1 "Tunnelling of signalling protocols (QSIG) in H.323" APC-1881 Nortel Networks Enforcing symmetric operation in the context of slow start for H.323v4 APC-1882 Nortel Networks Minor correction to H.323 Annex M.1 APC-1883 Columbia University CPL: A Language for User Control of Internet Telephony Services APC-1884 SONUS Decomposition of Gatekeeper Functions inside a Domain APC-1885 Hughes Software Systems { to suggest amendments in the H.323 standard } APC-1886 Columbia University RFC-2824: Call Processing Language Framework and Requirements APC-1887 Siemens AG H.450.12 - Common Information Additional Network Feature for H.323 APC-1888 Siemens AG M.3 - Tunneling of DSS1 in H.323 APC-1889 Q4/8 Voice/fax switching in draft H.323 Annex D v2 APC-1890 Q4/8 Facsimile related work on draft H.248 Annex F APC-1891 Q4/8 Draft T.38 Appendix V H.248 Call Establishment Procedure Examples APC-1892 Q4/8 Proposed Edits to H.248 Annex F APC-1893 PictureTel Proposed H.242/H.245 text for dynamicPictureResizingByFour APC-1894 ALCATEL Modification to H.323 annex H APC-1895 ETSI TIPHON WG8 Liaison statement subject: "H.235 Hybrid Security Profile" APC-1896 BT Use of the Generic Framework during Registration and other RAS Messaging APC-1897 BT Additional Data Types for GenericData APC-1898 BT Clarification on the Handling of Unknown conferenceGoals APC-1899 Lucent Technologies Fast Channel Open for H.245 APC-1900 Editor (P Reddy) H.246 Annex E.1 Interworking between H.225.0 and PLMN's Mobile Application Parts APC-1901 Editor (P Reddy) H.246 Annex E.2 Interworking between H.225.0 and ANSI-41 PLMN Mobile Application Part APC-1902 Intel H.323 Mobility services using IETF's Mobile IP and new extended protocols APC-1903 Editor (M Fortinsky) H.225.0 Annex G version 2 - draft APC-1904 Avaya DES with Output Feedback for Audio Encryption in H.235v3 APC-1905 UCLA Draft text for "Generic Uneven Level Protection (ULP)" for Annex I of H.323 APC-1906 UCLA Simulation results of ULP for transmission over error prone channels APC-1907 Editor (M Euchner) New Draft H.235 Version 3 APC-1908 Editor (M Euchner) Resolution of an inconsistency in Draft H.235 Version 2 regarding the use of the initial value APC-1909 Editor (J Sundquist) H.323 Annex H Draft APC-1910 LM Ericsson Addition to Implementor's guide to H.248 APC-1911 LM Ericsson Change of Capabilities indicated in H.248 ServiceChange APC-1912 LM Ericsson H.248 Annex L - Error Code and Service Change Reason Description APC-1913 LM Ericsson Improved Auditing in H.248 Version 2 APC-1914 LM Ericsson Comments to H.248 Annex K APC-1915 Editor (P Jones) Fast Connect SDLs Issues APC-1916 Editor (P Jones) Corrections to the H.323v4 White Paper Contribution APC-1917 Cisco Systems JAIN APIs for Integrated Networks APC-1918 Cisco Systems Interworking with Different Versions of H.323 Entities APC-1919 Cisco Systems Comments on the Object Extensible Framework APC-1920 Cisco Systems Third Party Re-Routing of a Fast Connect Initiated Call APC-1921 Cisco Systems Early Termination of Fast Connect APC-1922 Trillium Digital Systems, VocalTec Communications Correction to the H.225.0 Annex G UsageSpecification APC-1923 Editor (J Segers) Errors and unclarities in Recommendation H.248 APC-1924 Editor (T Taylor) Draft H.248 Annex M: Advanced Audio Server Packages APC-1925 Megaco Chair (T Taylor) IETF Megaco Comments On H.248 Annexes F, G, and H APC-1926 AT&T H.323 Intra-Zone Mobility Management using AuF and HLF APC-1927 Cisco Systems Reserving Resources for Calls APC-1928 Cisco Systems LRQ Forwarding APC-1929 Cisco Systems Alternate Gatekeeper Clarifications APC-1930 Siemens, Intel H.323 Mobility Service Descriptions APC-1931 Siemens, Intel Interaction of H.323 Mobility with H.450 Supplementary Services APC-1932 AT&T Comments on H.323 Annex H: User, Terminal and Service Mobility (MTD 101b - Editor's Contribution) APC-1933 BT Apply the Generic Framework to Annex G APC-1934 INTEC Web and Genome Informatics Corp., Oki Electric Industry Comments to H.323 Annex K APC-1935 Editor (O Levin) Draft of H.323 Annex O APC-1936 RADVision Expansion of McuInfo field definition in H.225.0 APC-1937 Siemens Security for H.323 Mobile Scenarios - Security for H.323 Annex H/H.235v3 Annex G APC-1938 Editor (D Walker) Draft H.323 Annex L Stimulus Signalling APC-1939 Editor (R Bowen) Draft H.225.0 v4 APC-1940 Editor (B Aronson) Draft H.323 Annex I APC-1941 Cisco Systems Enhancements to H.245 Replacement For procedure APC-1942 Cisco Systems Implementors Guide Recommendations for Tunneling Support in H323 version 2 and H323 version 3 entities APC-1943 Nortel Networks Use of inband tones in H.323 using special RTP payload types APC-1944 Cisco Systems Issues with Processing Unsolicited IRRs --------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: H.323 QOS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

Hi, Mike: Please see my response stated below [RRR]. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 1:24 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, Sorry , I am not following your arguments here. I thought your Table 1 was a description of the QoS requirements and media stream properties that would be signalled by the application/service provider to the network operator. This is transport QoS mechansm independent. [RRR] Certainly it is NOT the case. It is H.323, and nothing to do with service providers or network operators. H.323 spec only deals with the application on end-to-end basis. I maintain that the media statistic parameters can not in general be signalled on a per media stream basis. Only peak bit rate has any meaning to the application and derives from the choice of codec and packetisation arrangements. [RRR] It is NOT true. Please see H.245 spec how each medium is signaled along with QOS parameters (e.g., RSVP, ATM QOS). It already exits in H.323/H.245 on end-to-end basis if there is only one kind of network. We are just extending the same concept on end-to-end basis if there is one or multiple networks. If there is only one network either IP or ATM, H.323 QOS does NOT need any additional work per se. For IP network, H.323 provides the support of RSVP and more work may be needed if DiffServ or MPLS needs to be supported. For ATM QOS, H.323 QOS spec is also complete. But if there are combinations of IP and ATM (and/or other networks), there is no end-to-end H.323 QOS signaling mechanism that can be used as an universal set across all networks. In fact, as I told before, we are SOLVING this problem in H..323 Annex N. In agree the values in the Table do not need to be specified in the protocol. I am happy with YES/NO/Value with Value being optional in the case of YES. [RRR] I am glad to hear that we are in agreement here. >So, the first problem is to express performance/QOS parameters that do NOT >contain any values. That is, it will have only the parameters without any >value. For example, all audio/video codecs will have their parameters >expressed that will have only a limited set (in the previous case as can be >seen in Appendix of Annex N - there has been only 4 sets, etc.). These are >universal sets and does not matter what the codec type is. You have lost me here. What is the point signalling empty sets? [RRR] Please see the Appendix of H.323 Annex N how the QOS classes and the corresponding signaling messages have been created, and how the signaling will be done. There are two stages of H.313 QOS signaling: 1. Pre-call setup phase and 2. Call setup phase. In pre-call setup, it is the empty signaling messages sets that will be sent to determine whether these kind of QOS classes are supported on end-to-end basis. It is called the discovery phase. So far, it has been the ONLY goal for H.323 QOS. [RRR] For the call setup phase, the actual values of all those parameters are needed. We expect that the values can be chosen by endusers if there are no standards. However, if other SGs or forums (e.g., TIPHON, IMTC, SLA agreements, etc.) define those values, people can also use those specific values. Then the H.323 QOS signaling messages can use those implementation specific values. H.323 QOS will only have the place holder for those values. The order of events must surely be: [RRR] the order of events are shown in Appendix of H.323 Annex N. a) User requests QoS level of service provider: gold, silver etc. [RRR] Again, this is implementation specific and SG16 is not the right place to define gold, silver, etc. for H.323. b) Application uses H.225.0 and H.245 to establish compatible codecs and packetisation arrangements consistent with a), [RRR] H.245 is currently using RSVP and ATM QOS and we will use the similar approach. No new work is needed here. c) Application computes delay, delay variation and bit error rate required of transport network and signalls these to transport network operator. [RRR] We do not need to do anything NEW other than the similar thing what H.245 is doing currently for RSVP and ATM QOS. H.225.0 and h.245 will be used to: a) register a terminal's QoS characteristics with the service provider (gatekeeper). [RRR] H.323 does not define anything related to service providers, application providers, or network providers. It is implementation specific. It will only deal with the H.323 QOS signaling messages on end-to-end basis as it has been dong for RSVP and ATM QOS. Let other SGs or forums do some implementation specific agreement/standard for H.323 QOS. b) for user to request gold, silver or bronze or the end to end QoS parameters from a service provider (gatekeeper), [RRR] Again, it is an implementation issue, not a H.323 QOS protocol issue: gold, silver, etc. My response for item a is applicable. c) for service providers (gatekeepers) to signal QoS parameters to each other to enable end to end QoS levels to be achieved. [RRR] Again a GK can signal QOS parameters, but H.323 does not recognize service providers, applications providers, or network providers. However, the GK will signal using the H.323 QOS messages. The QOS signaling messages will contain many parameters (I do not think that it will contain QOS level per se). d) to establish compatible codecs and packetisation at both ends of a media stream. [RRR] H.245 has well established negotiation capabilities. We do not need to do any additional work here. Registration will take place prior to call set up. The rest of the QoS information flows must take place at call set up. [RRR] Please see my answers provided above. Currently, Appendix of H.323 Annex N has it completed how the pre-call setup signaling messages can be exchanged. The call setup phase will use the same mechanism as it exists today for RSVP and ATM QOS. We will only augment this using NEW parameters of H.323 QOS. We need a new protocol for signalling QoS requirements and authorisations to the network operator. [RRR] The pre-call setup and call setup phase that will use H.323 QOS messages (as shown in Appendix of H.323 QOS) will meet the QOS requirements. I do not think that we should "INVENT" any new security mechanisms ONLY specific to H.323 QOS. Security should be dealt for H.323 in general. This work MUST be de-coupled from H.323 QOS. Let's continue the debate on this lists - this is the best way of arriving at an agreed approach. Documenting it once we have agreement on what the problem is and how we are going to solve it should be quite straightforward. I hope we will have something to determine in November. [RRR] Yes, this has been the main purpose of my email. Moreover, emails go to all people throughout the whole world. Each one of us can participate. This is the MOST convenient way for resolving issues. I appreciate your response. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 5:09 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Please note the following: Table 1 shows all parameters that are observed in digitization form. (There may be similarity with some transport level parameters, but these are expressed in a transport independent way.) A given codec/data (appln.) may or may have all the parameters. If not, those parameters will be NOT be used. Each parameter contain: Yes/No and Value. So, the first problem is to express performance/QOS parameters that do NOT contain any values. That is, it will have only the parameters without any value. For example, all audio/video codecs will have their parameters expressed that will have only a limited set (in the previous case as can be seen in Appendix of Annex N - there has been only 4 sets, etc.). These are universal sets and does not matter what the codec type is. In H.323, we are NOT defining values of the parameters because values are subjective and implementation dependent. The values of any given QOS parameter or a set of QOS parameters are beyond the scope of H.323 (Q.13/16). The values are being defined in other SGs or organizations (e.g., TIPHON, IMTC, etc.). You are right that the values for each codec will be different. People may define many classes based on values as well. For example, 100ms delay is gold service, 150ms delay is silver service, etc. In Annex N, we will not be addressing those values. The same is also true for data. Defining of QOS values of any given parameters is OUT of scope of H.323. It appears that there is a mis-understanding. I do not any intention for any personal attack other than to complete the work on time (if it appears so, I apologize for this). Hope this clarifies your questions. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:08 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, >The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each >medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the >underlying transport network (or networks) is. >The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. We agree on the first paragraph. The problem I have with your Table 1 relates to media statistics (see my earlier comments). Incidentally the columns are the properties of transport media streams. the values will be dependent on media type, codec, packetisation etc. So I am not sure what the relevance of codec or T.120 is in the heading. The parameters in each column are what I regard as the generic bearer descriptor. >Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each >medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their >requirements. >This is the simple problem. The values follow from the users QoS service request, and the choices made by the application in achieving this (codec type, packetisation, jitter buffer design). Once the application has figured out what these parameters are then the entries in your table can be computed by the application and flagged to the transport operator on a domain by domain basis or end-to-end if there is one homogeneous transport space. >A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as >H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I see no conflict with the use of these transport mechanisms in the transport plane. You seem terribly worried about this. What is the problem? >I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar >with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top >of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very >short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and >losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. >If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. You are putting words into my mouth here that I never used. Why the personal attack? I thought the discussion had been quite constructive up to this point. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:41 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the underlying transport network (or networks) is. The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their requirements. This is the simple problem. A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. I like to see other members also provide comments on this. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:01 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, I think we are in total agreement until your last two paragraphs. Lets figure out what problem we are solving and what we need to do to achieve this, then examine the issues of backward compatibility. You are a lot more familiar than I am with the existing H.323 mechansims. Why are these not transport mechansm independent as per your model? Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Let me try again. What is the reference point of H.323 QOS? Is it not H.323? If it is so, what do we mean by H.323? The answer is: Audio (different codecs), Video (different codecs), and Data (T.120 applications) that are used by H.323. What are the QOS/performance characteristics of audio, video, and data from the application point of view that is generated by audio codecs, video codecs, and data (T.120) applications? These QOS/performance characteristics come from the SOURCE codecs and data applications. Per transport independent H.323 specifications, an enduser express their QOS/performance requirements on end-to-end basis purely from application point of view irrespective of the transport network (e.g., IP, ATM, etc.). Moreover, H.323 is meant for the packet network, not for any circuit-switched network like PSTN or ISDN. Let us NOT go beyond this before we start debating transport layer QOS or service provider requirements. These are NOT the concern of H.323. H.323 is the transport independent application. H.323v2/v3/v4 has also provided mechanisms how RSVP and ATM QOS can be used for H.323 audio, video, and data. So, H.323 QOS that will be defined in H.323 Annex N MUST provide mapping for the backward compatibility. It is a requirement that MUST be met per the norm of ITU-T. So, what is left for mapping? Mapping is simply a by-product of the above requirement. Mapping is simply a table, nothing else. Did I miss anything? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:19 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, Thanks for the input which I welcome as I will unfortunately not be present at Portland. Let me ask a few questions and make a few comments hopefully with the intent of opening up the debate. 1. I am not sure I understand your concept of a mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QoS. My understanding is that QoS is on three levels: a) that specified from a service point of view between the user and service provider (e.g PSTN quality, conference quality etc) This is the domain of the speech experts and can be characterised by Listener Speech Quaklity (MOS), end to end delay, and absolute category rating, R. b) application specific parameters, (e.g. equipment delays, codec choice and performance, codec frame size, packetisation arrangements, jitter buffer design, overall packet loss etc.) Optimisation of all these will determine what can be delivered in a). c) transport parameters for a given choice of application parameters. This boils down only to three parameters as far as I cna see: tranport network delay, packet delay variation in the transport network and packet loss in the transport network. Again these parameters will determine the results in a) for a given choice of the parameters in b). These parameters are generic from the perspective of the transport network. i.e the transport network does not need to know the details of the application. So the sequence of cause and effect and control is: a) User requests QoS class from service provider, b) Service provider determines application specific parameters in conjunction with users equipment and other service providers, c) Service provider requests required delay, delay variation and packet loss from network provider. I see no need for mapping here. The only QoS info flows within the application are specific to the application and those between the application (service provider) and the transport network are generic. i.e. delay, jitter and packet loss. Have I missed something? 2. The issue of bit rate and media stream statistics I think need to be decoupled from QoS. These are specified to enable optimisation of resources within the transport network. They have no QoS significance from an application point of view. i.e the apllication does not care about the media stream bit rate and statistics but the transport network provider does as it eats up his resource. They may be used for policy enforcement however in the transport network so they do need to be agreed between service provider and network operator. i.e the network operator agrees to provide a given QoS level (delay, jitter, packet loss) provided the media properties are within an agreed profile (bit rate, flow statistics). 3. The next point is how can the service provider know the statistics of a particular VBR stream? These can only be specified over a large number of similar calls and will depend, for instance, on who is speaking, the nature of the speech interaction etc etc. They can only be measured not calculated. The service provider is in no better position to measure these than the transport network operator and, in fact, where no gateways are involved, may not be able to. On the other hand the class of signal would have to be signalled to the network operator for him to be able to distinguish which class a particular measurement belonged to. e.g voice/speech/data, codec type, conference, multicast etc. So I see no purpose in trying to exchange statistics between the service provider (application) and transport operator. I think peak bit rate is all that can be meaningfully excanged. The specification of media class is however perhaps worth exploring. 4. The controlled category has always puzzled me. I only see two possibilities. Either the requested QoS level is guaranteed (on a statistical basis e.g 95% of all connections over a specified period) or not guaranteed. Is your controlled category a way of saying guaranteed, not to 95% but to some lower figure? If you can't put a percentage on it then it seems it is plain and simple not guaranteed. Anything that is not guaranteed to some specified statistical level is best effort and you can't say anything more about it. So I only see two categories here. In summary, I think we need to do three things in Annex N. a) Figure out the QoS information to be exchanged within the Application between service providers and end users. This will go in H.225.0 and H.245. b) Figure out how we are going to signal QoS and media information between the application (service providers) and transport domains (IP or ATM networks etc). The info is basically delay, jitter, packet loss requirements and peak bit rate. We need a protocol for this. c) we need to work out the interactions between the application QoS signal flows and the application/transport signal flows. I don't think we need worry about how the transport network mechanisms assure the requested QoS paramerters. RSVP/Intserv, Diffserv, MPLS, ATM, over provisioning are all possibilities. Would welcome comments and views on the above. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:15 PM Subject: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike and All: It is time to discuss about H.323 QOS. I believe that we have an agreement as follows: · H.323 QOS MUST be backward compatible to support RSVP and ATM QOS as it exists for H.323v2/v3/v4 · Like H.323 spec, the application level H.323 QOS MUST be independent of the transport layer QOS and should support all transport networks (e.g., IP, ATM) · A mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QOS (e.g., IP QOS [DiffServ, RSVP, etc.], ATM QOS [CBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VBR, ABR, etc.]) should be provided. >From the H.323 multimedia application point of view, there are following performance parameters can be used to characterize the traffic characteristics: · Bitrate characteristics: Peak bit rate (PBR) or peak rate (PR), Sustained bit rate (SBR) or average rate (AR), minimum bit rate (MBR) or minimum rate (MR), and mean bust size (MBS) · Delay and loss characteristics: end-to-end delay (EED) or delay, end-to-end delay variation (EEDV) or delay variation (DV), and bit-error-rate (BER) or (packet) loss rate (LR) We can now form a table with all parameters as follows: Table 1: H.323 Multimedia Application Performance Matrix Audio (codecs)--- Video (codecs)--- Data (T.120) PBR/PR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value SBR/AR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBR/MR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBS Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EED/Delay Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EEDV/DV Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value BER/LR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value >From the above table we will have the opportunity to choose each parameter for each medium (audio, video, data) that makes sense from the application's and enduser's point of view. Again, these parameters can be specified as follows: · Guaranteed: The value specified for each parameter MUST be guaranteed. · Controlled: The value specified for each parameter MAY be satisfied as far as practicable (possibly with certain range), but definitely NOT guaranteed. · Best effort: No commitment will be made. Now each medium (e.g., audio, video, or data) will have different categories of performance matrix depending on its selection criteria and this can also be mapped to RSVP, ATM QOS, and others, if needed. Once we agree on this format, the next step is to create H.323 QOS signaling messages. This is my input for discussion in the upcoming Portland Q.13 meeting for H.323 QOS. I like to see the comments from other members as well. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: H.323 QOS
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 11 Aug '00

11 Aug '00

Hi, Mike: Please note the following: Table 1 shows all parameters that are observed in digitization form. (There may be similarity with some transport level parameters, but these are expressed in a transport independent way.) A given codec/data (appln.) may or may have all the parameters. If not, those parameters will be NOT be used. Each parameter contain: Yes/No and Value. So, the first problem is to express performance/QOS parameters that do NOT contain any values. That is, it will have only the parameters without any value. For example, all audio/video codecs will have their parameters expressed that will have only a limited set (in the previous case as can be seen in Appendix of Annex N - there has been only 4 sets, etc.). These are universal sets and does not matter what the codec type is. In H.323, we are NOT defining values of the parameters because values are subjective and implementation dependent. The values of any given QOS parameter or a set of QOS parameters are beyond the scope of H.323 (Q.13/16). The values are being defined in other SGs or organizations (e.g., TIPHON, IMTC, etc.). You are right that the values for each codec will be different. People may define many classes based on values as well. For example, 100ms delay is gold service, 150ms delay is silver service, etc. In Annex N, we will not be addressing those values. The same is also true for data. Defining of QOS values of any given parameters is OUT of scope of H.323. It appears that there is a mis-understanding. I do not any intention for any personal attack other than to complete the work on time (if it appears so, I apologize for this). Hope this clarifies your questions. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:08 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, >The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each >medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the >underlying transport network (or networks) is. >The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. We agree on the first paragraph. The problem I have with your Table 1 relates to media statistics (see my earlier comments). Incidentally the columns are the properties of transport media streams. the values will be dependent on media type, codec, packetisation etc. So I am not sure what the relevance of codec or T.120 is in the heading. The parameters in each column are what I regard as the generic bearer descriptor. >Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each >medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their >requirements. >This is the simple problem. The values follow from the users QoS service request, and the choices made by the application in achieving this (codec type, packetisation, jitter buffer design). Once the application has figured out what these parameters are then the entries in your table can be computed by the application and flagged to the transport operator on a domain by domain basis or end-to-end if there is one homogeneous transport space. >A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as >H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I see no conflict with the use of these transport mechanisms in the transport plane. You seem terribly worried about this. What is the problem? >I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar >with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top >of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very >short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and >losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. >If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. You are putting words into my mouth here that I never used. Why the personal attack? I thought the discussion had been quite constructive up to this point. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:41 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: The basic problem is to express the end-to-end H.323 QOS parameters of each medium (audio, video, data) that are applicable no matter what the underlying transport network (or networks) is. The answer of this problem is Table 1 that I have provided. Now we have to group those parameters in different combinations for each medium that makes sense from the enduser point of view to satisfy their requirements. This is the simple problem. A by-product of this solution needs to satisfy RSVP and ATM QOS as H.323v2/v3/v4 spec is doing today. I am surprised to see that you are still saying that your are NOT familiar with H.323. If it is so, we have problems. An editor needs to be on the top of everything because the last editor did a good amount of job in a very short period of time addressing all issues. We are now going backward and losing our valuable time just because the editor is NOT familiar with H.323. If you ask questions, I would be happy to answer as much as I can. I like to see other members also provide comments on this. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:01 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, I think we are in total agreement until your last two paragraphs. Lets figure out what problem we are solving and what we need to do to achieve this, then examine the issues of backward compatibility. You are a lot more familiar than I am with the existing H.323 mechansims. Why are these not transport mechansm independent as per your model? Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike: Let me try again. What is the reference point of H.323 QOS? Is it not H.323? If it is so, what do we mean by H.323? The answer is: Audio (different codecs), Video (different codecs), and Data (T.120 applications) that are used by H.323. What are the QOS/performance characteristics of audio, video, and data from the application point of view that is generated by audio codecs, video codecs, and data (T.120) applications? These QOS/performance characteristics come from the SOURCE codecs and data applications. Per transport independent H.323 specifications, an enduser express their QOS/performance requirements on end-to-end basis purely from application point of view irrespective of the transport network (e.g., IP, ATM, etc.). Moreover, H.323 is meant for the packet network, not for any circuit-switched network like PSTN or ISDN. Let us NOT go beyond this before we start debating transport layer QOS or service provider requirements. These are NOT the concern of H.323. H.323 is the transport independent application. H.323v2/v3/v4 has also provided mechanisms how RSVP and ATM QOS can be used for H.323 audio, video, and data. So, H.323 QOS that will be defined in H.323 Annex N MUST provide mapping for the backward compatibility. It is a requirement that MUST be met per the norm of ITU-T. So, what is left for mapping? Mapping is simply a by-product of the above requirement. Mapping is simply a table, nothing else. Did I miss anything? Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley@44COMMS.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:19 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 QOS Radhika, Thanks for the input which I welcome as I will unfortunately not be present at Portland. Let me ask a few questions and make a few comments hopefully with the intent of opening up the debate. 1. I am not sure I understand your concept of a mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QoS. My understanding is that QoS is on three levels: a) that specified from a service point of view between the user and service provider (e.g PSTN quality, conference quality etc) This is the domain of the speech experts and can be characterised by Listener Speech Quaklity (MOS), end to end delay, and absolute category rating, R. b) application specific parameters, (e.g. equipment delays, codec choice and performance, codec frame size, packetisation arrangements, jitter buffer design, overall packet loss etc.) Optimisation of all these will determine what can be delivered in a). c) transport parameters for a given choice of application parameters. This boils down only to three parameters as far as I cna see: tranport network delay, packet delay variation in the transport network and packet loss in the transport network. Again these parameters will determine the results in a) for a given choice of the parameters in b). These parameters are generic from the perspective of the transport network. i.e the transport network does not need to know the details of the application. So the sequence of cause and effect and control is: a) User requests QoS class from service provider, b) Service provider determines application specific parameters in conjunction with users equipment and other service providers, c) Service provider requests required delay, delay variation and packet loss from network provider. I see no need for mapping here. The only QoS info flows within the application are specific to the application and those between the application (service provider) and the transport network are generic. i.e. delay, jitter and packet loss. Have I missed something? 2. The issue of bit rate and media stream statistics I think need to be decoupled from QoS. These are specified to enable optimisation of resources within the transport network. They have no QoS significance from an application point of view. i.e the apllication does not care about the media stream bit rate and statistics but the transport network provider does as it eats up his resource. They may be used for policy enforcement however in the transport network so they do need to be agreed between service provider and network operator. i.e the network operator agrees to provide a given QoS level (delay, jitter, packet loss) provided the media properties are within an agreed profile (bit rate, flow statistics). 3. The next point is how can the service provider know the statistics of a particular VBR stream? These can only be specified over a large number of similar calls and will depend, for instance, on who is speaking, the nature of the speech interaction etc etc. They can only be measured not calculated. The service provider is in no better position to measure these than the transport network operator and, in fact, where no gateways are involved, may not be able to. On the other hand the class of signal would have to be signalled to the network operator for him to be able to distinguish which class a particular measurement belonged to. e.g voice/speech/data, codec type, conference, multicast etc. So I see no purpose in trying to exchange statistics between the service provider (application) and transport operator. I think peak bit rate is all that can be meaningfully excanged. The specification of media class is however perhaps worth exploring. 4. The controlled category has always puzzled me. I only see two possibilities. Either the requested QoS level is guaranteed (on a statistical basis e.g 95% of all connections over a specified period) or not guaranteed. Is your controlled category a way of saying guaranteed, not to 95% but to some lower figure? If you can't put a percentage on it then it seems it is plain and simple not guaranteed. Anything that is not guaranteed to some specified statistical level is best effort and you can't say anything more about it. So I only see two categories here. In summary, I think we need to do three things in Annex N. a) Figure out the QoS information to be exchanged within the Application between service providers and end users. This will go in H.225.0 and H.245. b) Figure out how we are going to signal QoS and media information between the application (service providers) and transport domains (IP or ATM networks etc). The info is basically delay, jitter, packet loss requirements and peak bit rate. We need a protocol for this. c) we need to work out the interactions between the application QoS signal flows and the application/transport signal flows. I don't think we need worry about how the transport network mechanisms assure the requested QoS paramerters. RSVP/Intserv, Diffserv, MPLS, ATM, over provisioning are all possibilities. Would welcome comments and views on the above. Mike Mike Buckley +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) mikebuckley(a)44comms.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:15 PM Subject: H.323 QOS Hi, Mike and All: It is time to discuss about H.323 QOS. I believe that we have an agreement as follows: · H.323 QOS MUST be backward compatible to support RSVP and ATM QOS as it exists for H.323v2/v3/v4 · Like H.323 spec, the application level H.323 QOS MUST be independent of the transport layer QOS and should support all transport networks (e.g., IP, ATM) · A mapping table between the H.323 QOS and the transport layer QOS (e.g., IP QOS [DiffServ, RSVP, etc.], ATM QOS [CBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VBR, ABR, etc.]) should be provided. >From the H.323 multimedia application point of view, there are following performance parameters can be used to characterize the traffic characteristics: · Bitrate characteristics: Peak bit rate (PBR) or peak rate (PR), Sustained bit rate (SBR) or average rate (AR), minimum bit rate (MBR) or minimum rate (MR), and mean bust size (MBS) · Delay and loss characteristics: end-to-end delay (EED) or delay, end-to-end delay variation (EEDV) or delay variation (DV), and bit-error-rate (BER) or (packet) loss rate (LR) We can now form a table with all parameters as follows: Table 1: H.323 Multimedia Application Performance Matrix Audio (codecs)--- Video (codecs)--- Data (T.120) PBR/PR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value SBR/AR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBR/MR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value MBS Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EED/Delay Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value EEDV/DV Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value BER/LR Yes/No/Value Yes/No/Value Yes/No/value >From the above table we will have the opportunity to choose each parameter for each medium (audio, video, data) that makes sense from the application's and enduser's point of view. Again, these parameters can be specified as follows: · Guaranteed: The value specified for each parameter MUST be guaranteed. · Controlled: The value specified for each parameter MAY be satisfied as far as practicable (possibly with certain range), but definitely NOT guaranteed. · Best effort: No commitment will be made. Now each medium (e.g., audio, video, or data) will have different categories of performance matrix depending on its selection criteria and this can also be mapped to RSVP, ATM QOS, and others, if needed. Once we agree on this format, the next step is to create H.323 QOS signaling messages. This is my input for discussion in the upcoming Portland Q.13 meeting for H.323 QOS. I like to see the comments from other members as well. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

APC document number request
by Barry Aronson 11 Aug '00

11 Aug '00

Dear Mr. Okubo, Could you please allocate a document number for the following: Title: "Draft H.323 Annex I" Source: Editor Thanking you in advance. Sincerely yours, Barry Aronson Barry Aronson Toshiba Corporation 33 Lake Shore Ave. Beverly, MA 01915-1907 USA E-mail: baronson(a)ieee.org Voice: +1 978-232-3994 Fax: +1 978-232-9220 Video: H.320, H.323, and H.324 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0