- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

TEST - IGNORE
by Jozef Vandenameele 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test

1 0

communicationModeCommand
by csg 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Dear H.323 Experts I want to develop MC that control conferences by the type of multi-unicast conference. The terminal would multi-unicast audio/video stream to each terminal participating in the conference. But, I am not clear how to describe communicationModeCommand, especially mediaChannel, and mediaControlChannel. Because mediaChannel & mediaControlChannel will be determined by each terminal, MC cannot specify the TransportAddress of them. Experts! please, light my way.

1 0

Best New Trade Show Display by Opera Portables, Inc. adv
by opera＠localhost.net 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

1 0

Checkup
by Meyer, Greg W 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

The ITU-SG16 mail list has been suspiciously quiet since the loop condition earlier this week. If you experience any problems with the list, please let me know directly. Thanks, Greg Meyer Intel Corporation mailto:greg.w.meyer@intel.com +1.503.264.9506 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Test - please ignore <eom>
by Patrick_Luthi＠PICTEL.COM 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

ITU Approves Editorial Corrections to H.323v4/H.225.0v4
by Paul E. Jones 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Greetings! As many of you may be aware, a number of editorial errors in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 were pointed out to me very soon after the approval of those documents in November. While the number of errors is not tremendous, the very fact that the errors were reported by so many people so quickly is a testament to the fact that there are many people actively working on developing H.323-based products around the world. I have been working with the ITU to get those corrections made to the documents prior to publication so as to reduce confusion and interoperability issues. I have also been posting those corrections to the ITU SG-16 mailing list and to the Packetizer web site. I received good news this week: the ITU has agreed to accept those corrections for the final published texts. I have already updated the H.323 version 4 text and hope to have H.225.0v4 updated soon. You can download the new text from the Packetizer site (linking to the PictureTel avc-site). The corrections that were applied to H.323v4 and the corrections that will be applied to H.225.0v4 can also be found on the Packetizer site. Best Regards, Paul E. Jones Rapporteur, ITU-T Q.2/16

1 0

Re: H.323 Annex I
by Baese Gero 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Dear Stephan, experts, your are completely right and your point is out of discussion, of course. As you mentioned it is a problem with the wording only. The slice length should certainly be used in an efficient way but nobody should be restricted to use it in a special manner. Hopefully this small discussion/misunderstanding is now clarified. Best Wishes Gero Baese ----------------------------------------------------------- Gero Bäse Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 636 53193 Corporate Technology Fax: +49 89 636 52393 Networks and Multimediacommunication CT IC 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- Folks, At 04:47 PM 2/5/2001 -0800, Adam Li wrote: >Dear Mr. Baese, and Q.3 experts, > >First, since I haven't got Mr. Baese's opinion on what we pointed out in the >last email, I would like to repeat one more time and seeking a definite >answer (i.e., agree or disagree with your reasons). [...] What is the point of even discussing conditions where entities (be it slices or partitions) are bigger than the MTU size? No reasonable implementation would do this. >For the following in the testing condition documents "When the Annex K >and/or Annex V is used, the length of the slice should be such to make >packets fit in the length of segment to avoid segmentation of the IP packet >(for fixed segment-loss-rate channels, see below)." I'm not sure whether this sentence is the best possible wording to describe that a packet should be smaller than the MTU size. But this is just a matter of wording anyway. Stephan P.s. Personally, I would be much in favor of letting Annex I die the peaceful death it deserves -- given the amount of support it receives. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

None
by Baese Gero 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Dear Mr. Li, experts, a wording problem caused this discussion/misunderstanding concerning the slice length. You are completely free to use H.263 Annex K and Annex V the way you think it would be the best for your proposal and the optimum. In general, for a fair comparison parameter adjustments should be done the way it is widespread used. > For the following in the testing condition documents "When the Annex K > and/or Annex V is used, the length of the slice should be such to make > packets fit in the length of segment to avoid segmentation of > the IP packet. This would prevent us from using different approaches. Therefore we propose using "might" instead of "should" and as mentioned above you can use it in the optimal manner for your proposal. While testing your approach we will use it the way you proposed. If you agree on that we will incorporate it in the test scenario document APC-1993. We are still waiting for your contribution to the internet test section(Fixed Packet Loss Rate IP Channel). Best Wishes Gero Baese ----------------------------------------------------------- Gero Bäse Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 636 53193 Corporate Technology Fax: +49 89 636 52393 Networks and Multimediacommunication CT IC 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Usage Information Reporting in H.323 V4
by Paul, Manoj 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Hi All, This is with reference to Section 7.2.7 in H.323 V4 Specification on Usage Information Reporting. I will appreciate if someone could clarify a couple of things here. 1) RasUsageSpecification (as returned by Gk to Gw) specifies what should a Gw return in RasUsageInformation. Gk defines the callStartingPoint as alerting/connect in callStartingPoint Sequence in RasUsageSpecification. This is an OPTIONAL sequence. Is there any default call starting point that Gw must assume if Gk does not fill callStartingPoint sequence and still wants startTime reporting (as indicated by filling startTime in RasUsageInfoTypes field in RasUsageSpecification). 2) When field in RasUsgageSpecification indicates to the Gw the time when it should send RasUsageInformation to Gk. One of the options is "start" of the call. What point of time in a call sequence does the "start" refer to. If it is reception/sending of Setup, there would be invalid timestamps in alertingTime and connectTime in RasUsageInformation. 3) One of the options in When field in RasUsageSpecification is inIrr. This instructs the Gw to send RasUsageInformation in solicited/unsolicited IRRs. Again if multiple IRRs get sent during the duration of the call, what additional information is Gw providing to Gk in terms of RasUsageInformation? I will appreciate any pointers for the above. thanks Manoj Paul. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: Interoperability Problems due to Open Type encoding of Null t ypes (fwd)
by Paul, Manoj 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Bancroft: Does your input to ITU-T ASN.1 Meeting defines outermost value as value of a type that is either directly nested in an open type or is a complete application message unto itself. Or does your input refers outermost value only to the value of the open type IE and not the IEs nested within it? We would appreciate if you could provide us with this information as the clarifications to above in ASN.1 meetings would only happen in due time. Thanks Manoj. On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Paul E. Jones wrote: > Manoj, > > Given Bancroft's role in the development of ASN.1, I'd say that whatever he > says is probably true and most likely the intent if the text is not clear. I have inputted this to the ASN.1 meeting that was held at the ITU-T in Geneva January 22 - February 2, and this will be clarified in an upcoming corrigendum. > In any case, I would venture to guess that OSS is more widely used than any > other ASN.1 PER encoder/decoder on the market. While it may not be > appropriate to call their tools the "de facto" standard, they very much are > (no disrespect intended to anyone). I would suggest that the text be > clarified according to Bancroft's recommendation and that Implementers > follow his advise, as I believe it would result in the widest possible > interoperability. I'm cc'ing the ITU-T ASN.1 Rapporteur, Olivier Dubuisson, and the ISO/IEC ASN.1 Rapporteur, John Larmouth, in case they have anything to add. Bancroft ______________________________________________________ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul(a)TRILLIUM.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: Interoperability Problems due to Open Type encoding of Null t > ypes (fwd) > > > > Hi All, > > > > I am resending this mail as there does not seem to be a consensus on > > the defintion of "outermost" value as defined in X.691 specification. > > Any additional information which would help solve this issue is > > appreciated. It will help to mitigate one of the important issues > > affecting the interoperability across H.323 implementations. > > thanks > > Manoj. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul, Manoj [mailto:mpaul@TRILLIUM.COM] > > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:21 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Subject: Re: Interoperability Problems due to Open Type encoding of Null > > t ypes (fwd) > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > We agree to your interpretation for case (1). However, for case (2) > > we believe that only Foo SEQUENCE should be considered the outermost > > value. And since it would not generate an empty bit string, no additional > > 0x00 octet should be added to the field-list. Why should v (NULL element) > > also considered as outermost value in this context since it appears > > within the extension root of Foo, isn't it? > > -Manoj > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bancroft Scott [mailto:baos@OSS.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:58 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Subject: Re: Interoperability Problems due to Open Type encoding of Null > > types (fwd) > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Manoj Paul wrote: > > > > > Experts, > > > > > > We have come across a specific problem which has been the root > > > cause of interoperability failures across different implementations > > > of H.323 stack. The problem is related to the > > > 1) Encoding and decoding of NULL data types when they appear as > > > extension IEs. > > > 2) Encoding and decoding of extension IEs which have NULL as the > > > outermost ASN type. > > > > > > There have been different interpretations of the PER rules that apply > > > to the above conditions causing interop failures at encode/decode level. > > > Although the implementations would encode/decode (1) and (2) according > > > to Open Type elements, some subtle differences come as mentioned below: > > > > > > In case of (1), some implementations would not encode an extra 0x00 > > > octet for NULL data type and would just encode the length of the open > type > > > element as 0x00. This idea probably stems from the fact that a NULL > > > data type has no encoding when they appear in the root of the ASN.1 > type. > > > However, as per 10.1.3 and 10.2.1 of X.691, the correct encoding for > > > such a case would be 0x01 0x00, where 0x01 is the uncosntrained length > > > of the NULL data type encoding and 0x00 is the value of NULL data type > in > > > extension. > > > > Your understanding of the encoding is correct. > > > > > In case of (2), some implementations would encode the extension IE as > per > > > it's rules (e.g as a Choice/Sequence etc.), but would not add a 0x00 for > > > the outermost NULL data type in it's encode tree. This would change the > > > value of length field to be appended to this open type. Whereas some > > > implementations do add 0x00 octet for the outermost NULL data type. > > > > > > There appears to be a confusion as to what is meant by the "outermost" > > > value in 10.1.3 of X.691. I would appreciate clarification on this > > > clause as it would save a lot of interop overhead at encode/decode > level. > > > > "outermost" value refers to a value of a type that is either directly > > nested in an open type or is a complete application message unto itself. > > For example, if you had: > > > > Foo ::= SEQUENCE { > > b BOOLEAN, > > v TYPE-IDENTIFIER.&Type, > > ..., > > i NULL > > } > > > > bar Foo ::= {b TRUE, v NULL : NULL, i NULL} > > > > The value of Foo, bar, is an outermost value. The value of v (NULL : NULL) > > is encoded as an outermost value, so in this case since NULL encodes to 0 > > bits it is replaced with eight 0-bits, and this is prefixed with a length > > of 1. Similarly, the value of i is encoded as an outermost value, so the > > resulting encoding in this case will have a length of 1 followed by eight > > 0-bits. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bancroft Scott Toll Free :1-888-OSS-ASN1 > > OSS Nokalva International:1-732-302-0750 > > baos(a)oss.com Tech Support :1-732-302-9669 > > x-1 > > 1-732-302-9669 x-200 Fax :1-732-302-0023 > > http://www.oss.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

1 0