- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

[itu-sg16] FW: JCA-NID tenth meeting on: 26-27 Oct 2009
by simao.campos＠itu.int 06 Oct '09

06 Oct '09

Dear SG 16 experts, a notice from the JCA-NID secretariat. Simao From: Polidori, Stefano Sent: 06 October 2009 12:41 To: Campos, Simao Subject: JCA-NID tenth meeting on: 26-27 Oct 2009 Importance: High Dear experts, Please note that the 10th JCA-NID meeting will be held in conjunction with Study Group 16 meeting on Monday 26 October and Tuesday 27 October 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland. If you are planning to attend JCA-NID meeting, please register online at: http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-T/studygroup/edrs.registration. form?_eventid=3000100. The Convener, Mr Hyoung Jun Kim (ETRI, Korea), will chair the meeting; the draft agenda is published as JCA-NID Doc I-167 <http://wftp3.itu.int/jcanid/0910/In/JCANID-I-167_Draft_Agenda_26Oct2009 .doc> . Please find the current list of input documents at: http://itu.int/ITU-T/jca/nid/input.html#10th. To access the documents please use the following user and password (case sensitive): USER: jcanid PASS: Jcan1d If you wish to submit a document to the meeting please use the JCA-NID template <http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/jca/nid/docs/JCANID-template.doc> and send it to tsbjcanid(a)itu.int. The meeting schedule is: * Monday 26 October: 14:30 - 17:30 * Tuesday 27 October: 09:30 - 12:30 Participants' registration will begin on Monday 26 October at 08:30 hours in the reception of the Montbrillant building. Detailed information concerning the meeting rooms will be displayed on screens at the entrances to ITU headquarters; see the meeting announcement for more information (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/jca/nid/events/102009/announcement.html). Best regards, Stefano Polidori =============================== JCA-NID Secretariat ITU - International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) Place des Nations - Geneva CH1211 - Switzerland Tel: +41-22-730-5858 Fax: +41-22-730-5853 Web: www.itu.int/ITU-T/jca/nid Email: tsbjcanid(a)itu.int

1 0

[itu-sg16] Meeting Notice of Q13/16 Geneva Meeting
by Masahito Kawamori 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

Dear experts I am sorry for the discrepancies in the subjects. Please note that the Rapporteur meeting will be held in Geneva, not Seoul. 2009/10/2, Masahito Kawamori <kawamorim(a)gmail.com>: > Experts of ITU-T SG16 Question 13/16 Multimedia application platforms > and end systems for IPTV > > Cc Mr Y Naito, Chairman of SG16 > <Naito.Yushi(a)dr.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp> > Ms C Lamblin, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <claude.lamblin(a)orange-ftgroup.com> > Mr S-H Jeong, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <shjeong(a)hufs.ac.kr> > Mr N Luo, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <noah(a)huawei.com> > Mr M Neibert, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <markneibert(a)mac.com> > Mr I Oueichek, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <oueichek(a)tarassul.sy> > Mr F Soumah, Vice Chairman of SG16 > <drfsuma(a)yahoo.fr> > Mr Y Goto, Vice Chairman of WP2/16 > <goto(a)ansl.ntt.co.jp> > Mr S Campos-Neto, ITU TSB > <simao.campos(a)itu.int> > > De M Kawamori, Rapporteur for Q13/16 > <kawamori.masahito(a)lab.ntt.co.jp> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subject: Notice of Rapporteur Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland > Dates: 21-30 October 2009, > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Experts of Q13/16, > > The subject meeting of ITU-T SG16 experts will be held in Geneva, > Switzerland. Details of the > meeting are contained herein. > > 1. Date > ^^^^^^^ > > 21 (Wednesday) - 23 (Friday) October 2009 > > Note Q13/16 will also meet 26 (Monday) - 30 (Friday) October 2009 as > part of IPTV-GIS event. > > Meeting times, unless otherwise stated, are 09:30 to 10:45, 11:15 to > 12:30, 14:30 to 15:45 and > > 16:15 to 17:30 hours. Evening sessions start at 18:00. > > > 2. Venue > ^^^^^^^^ > > ITU-T Building, Geneva, Switzerland > > > 3. Topics (tentative) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > - Coordinate with other SDOs, Questions, and Study Groups > - Progress work on the following: > > o H.IPTV-AEH > o H.IPTV-AM > o H.IPTV-DSMW > o H.IPTV-WBTM > o H.IPTV-MAFR.2 > o H.IPTV-MAFR.4 > o H.IPTV-MAFR.6 > o H.IPTV-MAFR.13 > o H.IPTV-MAFR.14 > o H.IPTV-TDES.3 > o H.IPTV-TDES.4 > o TP.IPTV-SNV > o TP.IPTV-WBSD > o TP.IPTV-ISPF > o TP.IPTV-MDSD > o TP.IPTV-PITD > o TP-SBSD > o TP.TDPower > > - Progress work on Rigts Information Interoperability > - Joint work with MPEG > - Discussion of miscellaneous and new work items > > 4. Documents > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > It is recommended that the usual procedure for submitting documents to > SG16 will be followed. > > > 5. Logistic Information > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Please refer to the ITU-T website: > > <http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/info/dresources.html> > > > > -------------------- > > We are looking forward to meeting you in Seoul/Bundang. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Masahito KAWAMORI (meeting organizer of this meeting) >

1 0

[itu-sg16] Meeting Notice of Q13/16 Seoul Meeting
by kawamori.masahito＠lab.ntt.co.jp 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

Experts of ITU-T SG16 Question 13/16 Multimedia application platforms and end systems for IPTV Cc Mr Y Naito, Chairman of SG16 <Naito.Yushi(a)dr.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp> Ms C Lamblin, Vice Chairman of SG16 <claude.lamblin(a)orange-ftgroup.com> Mr S-H Jeong, Vice Chairman of SG16 <shjeong(a)hufs.ac.kr> Mr N Luo, Vice Chairman of SG16 <noah(a)huawei.com> Mr M Neibert, Vice Chairman of SG16 <markneibert(a)mac.com> Mr I Oueichek, Vice Chairman of SG16 <oueichek(a)tarassul.sy> Mr F Soumah, Vice Chairman of SG16 <drfsuma(a)yahoo.fr> Mr Y Goto, Vice Chairman of WP2/16 <goto(a)ansl.ntt.co.jp> Mr S Campos-Neto, ITU TSB <simao.campos(a)itu.int> De M Kawamori, Rapporteur for Q13/16 <kawamori.masahito(a)lab.ntt.co.jp> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Notice of Rapporteur Meeting in Seoul, the Republic of Korea Date: 13-17 April 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Experts of Q13/16, The subject meeting of ITU-T SG16 experts will be held in Bundang, the Republic of Korea at the kind invitation of ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) and TTA (Telecommunications Technology Association) of the Republic of Korea. Details of the meeting are contained herein. 1. Date ^^^^^^^ 13 (Monday) - 17 (Friday) April 2009 Meeting will start at 9:30 on the first day and close around 17:00 on the final day. 2. Venue ^^^^^^^^ TTA 267-2 Seohyeon-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-city, Gyonggi-do, Republic of Korea Phone: +82 31 724 0085 E-mail: ssoh(a)tta.or.kr Home page: http://www.tta.or.kr/English/ 3. Topics (tentative) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - Coordinate with other SDOs, Questions, and Study Groups - Progress work on the following: o H.IPTV-MAP o H.ProComp o H.IPTV-AEH o H.IPTV-AM o H.IPTV-DSMW o H.IPTV-WBTM o H.IPTV-MAFR.2 o H.IPTV-MAFR.4 o H.IPTV-MAFR.5 o H.IPTV-MAFR.6 o H.IPTV-MAFR.8 o H.IPTV-MAFR.13 o H.IPTV-MAFR.14 o H.IPTV-TDES.3 o H.IPTV-TDES.4 o TP.IPTV-CMA o TP.IPTV-CMA o TP.IPTV-SNV o TP.IPTV-WBSD o TP.IPTV-ISPF o TP.IMFR o TP.TDPower o H.IPTV-SDC - Progress work on Rigts Information Interoperability - Discussion of miscellaneous and new work items 4. Documents ^^^^^^^^^^^^ /// Registration of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 6 April 2009 /// /// Distribution of the document: by 23:59 UTC, 8 April 2009 /// /// Use the ftp site (or e-mail reflector) for distribution /// 1) When you are going to submit a document, please notify the document manager of this meeting, as soon as possible, by 23:59 UTC, Monday 6April 2009 at the latest. Document number AVD-nnnn will be allocated. Early indication of your submission plan is welcome and encouraged. Note - Prefix "AVD" comes from Audio, Video and Data. 2) You are advised to use the document template available at the following place: <http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2012/0904_Seo/> 3) File format: Use of Word, PDF, ASCII or HTML is recommended. 4) All the contributors are requested to distribute their documents as early as possible, at least 5 calendar days in advance of the meeting (23:59 UTC, Wednesday 8 April 2009 or before) by posting them at either of the following: - Uploading via FTP Site: ftp3.itu.int/ User ID: avguest Password: Avguest (Note the uppercase 'A') Directory: avc-site/Incoming - E-mail reflector E-mail address: <itu-sg16(a)lists.packetizer.com> To subscribe: please visit <http://lists.packetizer.com/mailman/listinfo/itu-sg16> Please avoid the use of reflector when your document is voluminous (i.e., more than 100 kbytes). 5) Input documents can be retrieved from 0904_Seo directory of the ftp site once Mr Jones has an opportunity to put them into place. The documents will be available through the following URLs: <http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2012/0904_Seo> <ftp://ftp3.itu.int/avc-site/2009-2012/0904_Seo/> user: avguest, password: Avguest 6) The document distribution/presentation at the meeting will be all electronic. Participants must bring along a laptop, wireless LAN card and/or Ethernet card, in order to access the documents (Internet access will be available in the meeting rooms). Note: make sure you have the right power adapter for the Republic of Korea, see <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_AC_power_plugs_and_sockets> type C (2-pin CEE 7/17, German/French unearthed). 5. Logistic Information ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The meeting logistic information can be found at: http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2009/0904_Seo/Seoul_practical_inf… 6. VISA Information ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Experts are advised to check about regulations regarding VISA. In case of doubt, the information can be obtained from the nearest Korean Embassy or Consulate as well as the following website: <http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/main/index.jsp?lang=eng> If needed, please return the form provided in the Annex B of the Practical Information to Ms. Oh, Sesoon, no later than 13 March 2009 for the processing of formal invitation letter. E-mail: ssoh(a)tta.or.kr Phone : +82-31-724- 0085 Fax: +82-31-724-0119 or +82-31-724-0109 7. Hotel Room Reservation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please check with the Annex A of the Practical Information. We are looking forward to meeting you in Seoul/Bundang. Sincerely yours, Masahito KAWAMORI (meeting organizer of this meeting) ----------

4 6

[itu-sg16] FW: [T16AVD] Request for input to the "Multiple video streams FECC AHG"
by Paul E. Jones 28 Sep '09

28 Sep '09

FYI From: stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:31 PM To: t09sg16avd(a)lists.itu.int Subject: [T16AVD] Request for input to the "Multiple video streams FECC AHG" I would remind you all of the following item in the Q1/16 Experts Meeting Report (24-25 June 2009): >>> 2.3 H.281 and changes for supporting multiple video streams Q1-I08 was presented and a short discussion followed. The group noted the limitations and considerations raised by the contribution. It was noted that, if the solution would involve enhancements to both H.281 and H.224, it would be desirable to consent those recommendations at the same time. Because of the absence of several experts, the proponent himself and not being able to fully discuss this topic, Q1 experts agreed to create an Ad-hoc group (chaired by S. Botzko) to progress this work through electronic correspondence in the interim period. The contributor was asked to submit a contribution to the next meeting of SG16 to allow a continuation of the discussion. Experts interested in participating in this work are encouraged to contact the Rapporteur and/or the AHG Chair. >>> Feedback on these approaches would be appreciated - please reply to this email. If desired, contact me directly and I will set up a meeting. Alternatively, interested parties can communicate through email. At this point I see three possible ways to progress the work: (1) Use the Q1-I08 contribution (June 2009 meeting) as the basis This contribution proposes "channeling" the existing H.281 messages, so that the video channel can be carried in the new messages. Backwards compatibility is provided since the existing messages are still used for the main video channel. Existing H.281 clients would not be able to control the second (or third) channels. (2) Use the C-0399 contribution (April 2008 meeting) as the basis This contribution proposes adding a second H.224 CME client id for the second video channel. Backwards compatibility is provided since the existing client ID is still used for the main video channel. Existing H.281 clients would not be able to control the second (or third) channels. (3) Revise H.281 Video Source Capability to include a channel number (Figure 10/H.281) There is no contribution (yet) for this approach. This idea proposes specifying the channel number within the existing H.281 Video Source Capability for sources 6-15. The channel is transmitted in ASCII in the existing camera name. Backwards compatibility is provided since existing clients can decode this message. This idea allows existing H.281 clients to control the cameras for both video channels - it is the only current proposal which does this. The syntax of only one message in H.281 is slightly adjusted. The existing video source capability for these sources looks like this: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4-bits encoded Video Source Reserved Motion video Normal resolution still image Double resolution still image Up to 16 ASCII encoded characters All zeros octet Pan Tilt Zoom Focus Reserved The revision is to set the Reserved Bit if the Video Source is sending on a secondary video channel. If the reserved bit is set, the first character of the source name is a channel number (in ASCII), the second character is a space. The remaining 14 characters have the existing meaning. This is backwards compatible, since if the reserved bit is ignored the message can be decoded properly by existing receivers. An alternative is to leave the reserved bit alone - since use of these extended sources is rare, this might be sufficient. All three approaches share a common issue. H.323 and H.320 video channel numbering is not preserved end-to-end. Therefore, sometimes the user may discover that they are moving the camera for the "wrong" video stream. One solution is bind the channels to H.239 role labels, which are preserved. For instance, use channel 0 for main, channel 1 for presentation, and channel 2 for live. Expanding beyond 2 channels could be done by adding new role labels to H.239. Stephen Botzko Chair - Multiple video streams FECC AHG Polycom +1 978 292 5395

1 0

[itu-sg16] unsubscribe
by Enrico Marocco 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

-- Ciao, Enrico

1 0

[itu-sg16] Packetizer Forums Site Launched
by Paul E. Jones 25 Aug '09

25 Aug '09

Folks, Last week, I sent an email to a fairly large number of people wherein I raised an issue: there seems to be a need for a place to go for people to ask questions about signaling protocols, implementation, deployment, and various issues related thereto in the area of videoconferencing. There are various mailing lists and such, but people are scattered all over with no "right place" to go to ask questions. I get a lot of questions directed my way, simply because people do not know where else to ask. We are hosting a number of public mailing lists on Packetizer, some lists are hosted by the IMTC, others at Columbia and Ohio State, etc. Perhaps some of those lists are perfect for engineers or those working on standards, but I've noted that end users, especially, have no place to ask questions. Also, there are lots of questions related to open source projects that get posted to various lists, only because those products happen to use a particular protocol, etc. So, I took a poll asking whether folks would prefer a web-based discussion forum, email list(s), or a "nothing else is needed". Over 50% of those who responded to the poll indicated that they would like to see a discussion forum for VoIP, videoconferencing, and data conferencing discussions. So in response, I set up this site: http://forums.packetizer.com. The structure might not be perfect and since I had to write the ATOM/RSS code myself over the weekend, I will not declare it to be bug free just yet. Nonetheless, the board is running a stable release of phpBB3 and ought to work well. I certainly welcome any comments you have and will try to improve the structure and operation as issues are raised. I do hope you find this useful and I would encourage people with expertise in a particular area to join. I will personally be answering questions, as I have for years, but there are certainly others with better qualifications to answer questions in some areas than me. If anyone is interested in a moderator role on the site, let me know. If you have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to ask me. Paul

1 0

Re: [itu-sg16] [h323forum] Discussion Forum or Mailing List for Videoconferencing
by Paul E. Jones 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

Bob, I think this only highlights the issue: there are several different lists that are used and those lists are not used for the purpose for which they were established. I see H.323 implementation questions on the H.323 Forum discussion list, for example. And I see equipment troubleshooting issues on the Megaconference list. Perhaps there's no way to avoid that problem, though. Even if I create a new list or a forum, people may have problems finding the resource in the first place. Still, it would be good if there was a "right place" to direct such questions, perhaps it would be beneficial to a wider audience. That's my hope, anyway. As of now, the poll seems to suggest that folks are pretty split on the issue. Unfortunately, though, not enough people cast a vote to really be statistically valid. It also suggest that interest is not high enough. (I had added the "Neither" to help me get a clear picture that folks are not interested. I would hope people use that if they think this is not needed.) I also had a discussion on two other options: . Employ a web forum with RSS feeds so folks do not have to visit the web site more frequently than necessary . Employ a Wiki where people could manage the site content themselves I'd be curious to see which of those people prefer. Paul From: Bob Dixon [mailto:dixon.8@osu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:12 PM To: Paul E. Jones; h323-announce(a)lists.packetizer.com; itu-sg16(a)lists.packetizer.com; h323-implementers(a)lists.packetizer.com; packetizer-news(a)lists.packetizer.com; h323forum(a)mail.imtc.org Subject: Re: [h323forum] Discussion Forum or Mailing List for Videoconferencing Many of these kinds of questions are already discussed on the Megaconference mailing list. The list originally was about the Megaconferences, but now is about all aspects of video conferencing, and it is widely used. All are invited to join. Bob At 3:13 PM -0400 8/19/09, Paul E. Jones wrote: <http://www.packetizer.com/> image002 90.jpg Folks, First let me apologize for this very unusual message, but I would really very much appreciate your feedback and suggestions on this topic. Over the past year, I have seen an increase in the number of videoconferencing-related questions. Sometimes these questions are development-related (for which there are appropriate mailing lists), but more often lately I am getting a lot of end-user questions. I get questions like "how do I configure product X to talk to product Y" or "how can I get video working with product X" or "what is the best video camera for use with my software videophone?" I'm also now getting questions about using XMPP for audio and video communication, which is a fairly natural extension of the IM/presence standard. (In case you were not aware, Google Talk is using XMPP and Google worked to define the Jingle extensions that make this possible.) Unfortunately, I am unable to provide good answer to some of these questions, but I know others on these lists are. Collectively, I think we could answer any question sent our direction. And, keeping with the spirit of why Packetizer was created in the first place, I would really like to offer a place for people to go to get the needed answers to their problems. Even you might have some questions and would like to have a place to go ask. That said, you might feel differently. So, before I create an on-line discussion forum or create a mailing list, I would like to get your input. Should I create a discussion forum, mailing list, or neither? Obviously, if I create it, I would want people to register / sign-up to participate, else it would be pointless. If you feel like you would likely never bother with visiting this web site or subscribing to a mailing list, then I'd like to know that: say "neither". Since there are over 1,000 people on these mailing lists (just considering those on Packetizer - likely more on the H.323 Forum list), I decided to create a poll for my benefit and the benefit of others who are interested in this topic. So, please go cast your vote: http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/646129-195628 Please go take the poll, but do not do a "reply all" and send messages back to everybody. If you do want to talk to me about this, though, feel free to reply to me privately. Kindest Regards, Paul E. Jones Rapportuer, ITU-T Q2/16, Q12/16 --- You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: dixon.8(a)osu.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-1786263-31884.2f2025ae2e57e71843298d80bed5cfde(a)mail.imtc.org --- You are currently subscribed to h323forum as: dixon.8(a)osu.edu To manage your work group subscriptions please visit http://www.imtc.org/members_area/lists.asp _____ Spam <https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=924324880&m=76b579a04ac4&c=s> Not <https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=924324880&m=76b579a04ac4&c=n> spam Forget <https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=924324880&m=76b579a04ac4&c=f> previous vote -- Robert S. Dixon, Ph D, PE Chief Research Engineer Ohio Academic and Research Network (OARnet) Office Telephone: 614-292-1638 Fax: 614-247-7096

1 0

[itu-sg16] Discussion Forum or Mailing List for Videoconferencing
by Paul E. Jones 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

<http://www.packetizer.com/> http://www.h323.net/images/shared/pktzr_ur_logo.png Folks, First let me apologize for this very unusual message, but I would really very much appreciate your feedback and suggestions on this topic. Over the past year, I have seen an increase in the number of videoconferencing-related questions. Sometimes these questions are development-related (for which there are appropriate mailing lists), but more often lately I am getting a lot of end-user questions. I get questions like "how do I configure product X to talk to product Y" or "how can I get video working with product X" or "what is the best video camera for use with my software videophone?" I'm also now getting questions about using XMPP for audio and video communication, which is a fairly natural extension of the IM/presence standard. (In case you were not aware, Google Talk is using XMPP and Google worked to define the Jingle extensions that make this possible.) Unfortunately, I am unable to provide good answer to some of these questions, but I know others on these lists are. Collectively, I think we could answer any question sent our direction. And, keeping with the spirit of why Packetizer was created in the first place, I would really like to offer a place for people to go to get the needed answers to their problems. Even you might have some questions and would like to have a place to go ask. That said, you might feel differently. So, before I create an on-line discussion forum or create a mailing list, I would like to get your input. Should I create a discussion forum, mailing list, or neither? Obviously, if I create it, I would want people to register / sign-up to participate, else it would be pointless. If you feel like you would likely never bother with visiting this web site or subscribing to a mailing list, then I'd like to know that: say "neither". Since there are over 1,000 people on these mailing lists (just considering those on Packetizer - likely more on the H.323 Forum list), I decided to create a poll for my benefit and the benefit of others who are interested in this topic. So, please go cast your vote: http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/646129-195628 Please go take the poll, but do not do a "reply all" and send messages back to everybody. If you do want to talk to me about this, though, feel free to reply to me privately. Kindest Regards, Paul E. Jones Rapportuer, ITU-T Q2/16, Q12/16

1 0

[itu-sg16] Preparation for the upcoming Q2 and Q12 meetings
by Paul E. Jones 09 Aug '09

09 Aug '09

Folks, The next SG16 meeting will be held 26 October - 6 November 2009. The meeting notice from the ITU can be found here: http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG16-COL-0004/en Question 2 We have a number of documents in Q2 that are scheduled for consent and I'd really like to ensure we are successful in addressing any and all open issues so that we can successfully consent those documents. The work program for Q2 is shown at the top of this page: http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/h323/doc_status.html The documents scheduled for consent include: . H.323v7 . H.225.0v7 . H.245v15 . H.460.geo (Transport of geographic information in H.323) . H.460.23 (NAT Determination) . H.460.24 (Point-to-Point Media Flows through NAT) Also on that page are links to all of the documents. I would strongly encourage those interested in any particular document to review the text in advance and prepare a contribution, if necessary, to address any concerns you might have. Of course, you're also welcome to discuss issues directly with me, the various editors, or with the whole group via this mailing list in advance of the meeting. My objective is to ensure that we are able to consent these texts without running into unforeseen obstacles. Question 12 As you know, the work in Question 12 is progressing, but we are not at a state where we have any documents to consider for consent. Nonetheless, there are a number of documents in progress. They are shown at the top of this page: http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/h325/doc_status.html While the requirements may not be entirely finalized, I believe that they have sufficiently progressed to a point where we can start to talk about information flows. What I would like to see are contributions that speak to the following topics: . What information needs to be conveyed between applications and the Container . What information needs to be conveyed between the Container and the network . What the syntax might look like o We had previously agreed to use XML and possibly XML compression techniques o We ought to try to put this into a more concrete form, even if we might change things a few times until we're comfortable with what we have One of the things I've been looking at is how to ensure that we can properly design a system that supports versioning of messages in a way that is similar to the way other communication systems allow for the introduction of new information elements. The conclusion I reached was that XML Schema 1.0 is insufficient for our needs. What will work, though, is XML Schema 1.1, which earlier this year reached Candidate Recommendation status in the W3C. A really good overview of what's new in XML Schema 1.1 can be found here: http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt Of particular interest, of course, are the additions that relate to versioning. (I sent this link to the h325-design list last month, but I wanted to repeat it here for the benefit of others in WP2 who may not be aware of it. Plus, it has been revised numerous times and now includes a relatively short tutorial at the beginning for all of those who might not have the patience to read through a few hundred slides.) I look forward to seeing everyone in Geneva and hope we can make good progress in both Q2 and Q12 Kindest Regards, Paul E. Jones Rapporteur, Q2/16 and Q12/16 Cisco Systems, Inc.

1 0

Re: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16
by Paul E. Jones 08 Aug '09

08 Aug '09

Sébastien, Thanks for doing that for us. Hopefully, this will mean we will not find a need to introduce any corrections via the Implementers' Guide. I trust the H.225.0 editor (copied) will address the editorial issue. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: sebastien.castano(a)itu.int [mailto:sebastien.castano@itu.int] > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:50 AM > To: paulej(a)packetizer.com > Cc: itu-sg16(a)lists.packetizer.com; Stephen.Botzko(a)polycom.com; > mperumal(a)cisco.com; anparvee(a)cisco.com; s.horne(a)packetizer.com; > olivier.dubuisson(a)orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16 > > > Dear Paul, > > I checked ASN.1 modules in H.323v7 and H.225.0v7 as asked by Olivier and no > error were depicted. > > Just a small editing issue in H.225.0v7 in the comments inserted in > ServiceControlDescriptor definition: > A return line is missing between "-- referenced " and "-- protocol/resource" > > Best regards, > Sébastien Castano > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: vendredi, 24. juillet 2009 18:28 > > To: 'Olivier DUBUISSON' > > Cc: itu-sg16(a)lists.packetizer.com; Castano, Sebastien; > > 'Botzko, Stephen'; 'Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)'; > > 'Anisha Parveen'; 'Simon Horne' > > Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16 > > > > Olivier, > > > > Thanks for your careful review. I have copied the respective > > editors so that they can address these points in their documents. > > > > Editors: Simao requested that we not make the with respect to > > the way we reference ITU-T Recommendations in H.225.0 and > > H.323, since that would produce a lot of change marks that > > are not technical changes. However, for H.460.geo (and > > H.460.23/24), we should make references according to this guidance. > > > > With respect to H.323 and BER/PER references, the only > > reference to BER (as far as I know) is one of the Annex M.x > > sections. There, we do not encode or decode messages, but > > merely provide a tunneling mechanism for protocols defined > > elsewhere. As such, I would think we might want an > > informative reference to BER. > > > > I'll be out of the office next week, so I might be slow in > > responding to any replies. > > > > Paul > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Olivier DUBUISSON > > [mailto:olivier.dubuisson@orange-ftgroup.com] > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:43 AM > > > To: Paul E. Jones > > > Cc: itu-sg16(a)lists.packetizer.com; Sébastien Castano > > > Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Progressing work in Q2/16 > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > here are some editorial changes: > > > > > > * H.323v7: > > > - it is better to remove the whitespace in front of each opening > > > parenthesis in an OID as it makes it easier to understand when a > > > number is associated with an identifier and avoid any > > confusion in the > > > case a number without an associated identifier is followed > > by a number > > > (a possible case) > > > - clause 2: Add a reference to the ITU-T X.680 series as well as to > > > X.690 and X.691 since both BER and PER are mentioned; I see a > > > normative reference to X.680 in Annex R: This is unusual! > > > - clause 4: OID is not defined as an acronym for Object-Id (I would > > > prefer not to use that acronym throughout the text, though!) > > > - Clause M4.5.3: Add an OID to the ASN.1 module; is this the only > > > ASN.1 module in that standard? > > > - M5.3: 'i' missing in OBJECT IDENTIFIER in the first sentence > > > > > > * H.225.0v7: > > > - Clause 2 doesn't reference the latest edition of the > > X.680 and X.690 > > > series > > > - Annex H: Add an OID to the ASN.1 module > > > - Table VI.1: remove leading zeroes within icd-ecma(0012) > > > - it is also better to remove the whitespace in front of > > each opening > > > parenthesis in an OID as it makes it easier to understand when a > > > number is associated with an identifier and avoid any > > confusion in the > > > case a number without an associated identifier is followed > > by a number > > > (a possible case) > > > > > > * H.460.geo: > > > - Clause 2: replace "ISOC/IETF" with "IETF" > > > > > > * General remark: > > > As approved by TSAG last year, the new way of referencing an ITU-T > > > Recommendation is "Recommendation ITU-T H.xxx" in clause 2 > > and "ITU-T > > > H.xxx" as a reference in the body. > > > > > > I am Cc'ing Sébastien Castano from the TSB in case he can find some > > > time to check the ASN.1 modules in H.323v7 and H.225.0v7. > > > -- > > > Olivier DUBUISSON, ITU-T ASN.1 & OID Project leader France Telecom > > > NSM/RD/DDEV - BP 50702 - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France > > > tel: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - fax: +33 1 58 15 52 05 > > > > > > > > > Paul E. Jones wrote: > > > > Q2/16 Experts, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are several draft documents that are scheduled for > > consent at > > > > the October/November 2009 meeting in Q2. They are: > > H.323v7, H.323 > > > > Annex I (use of new FEC procedures defined in the IETF), > > H.225.0v7, > > > > H.460.geo (transmission of geographic information in H.323), > > > > H.460.23 (NAT determination), and H.460.24 > > (point-to-point media flow through NAT). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pointers to the current editors' draft documents can be > > found here: > > > > > > > > http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/h323/doc_status.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to kindly request that you give these documents a > > > > thorough review and do one of two things: > > > > > > > > 1) Submit a contribution to the next SG16 meeting > > proposing changes > > > > to these texts > > > > > > > > 2) Provide your comments via the list or directly to > > the editor; > > > > the editor will address any minor editorial issues in the > > text and > > > > prepare a contribution for technical changes (if necessary) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to keep these documents on schedule, so your input and > > > > comments would be very helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if you have any questions or comments, I am more than > > > > happy to provide input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Paul E. Jones > > > > > > > > Rapporteur, ITU-T Q2/16 > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0