- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

PictureTel contributions uploaded
by Patrick_Luthi＠PICTEL.COM 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Dear experts, The following contributions have been uploaded to the AVC-site/incoming: APC-1988 PictureTel RTP Payload Types in H.245 APC-1989 PictureTel Proposed New H.245 messages for H.263++ Annex U and Annex W.6.3.12 See you in Geneva! Patrick Luthi PictureTel Corp. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Last Call On NAS Package
by Tom-PT Taylor 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

There have been no comments on draft-ietf-megaco-naspkg-01.txt. I am therefore submitting it to WG Last Call, expiring Nov. 8/00. I think our intention is that this be a Standards Track item, so speak up if you disagree. Tom Taylor

1 0

Re: Video experts: Proposal to add video to Desired/SupportedProt ocols
by Roni Even 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Paul & Boaz, The supported protocol structure was defined for registering gateways at the gatekeeper. This enabled the gateway to define which protocol it supports and which rates - see gatewayinfo structure. In version 4 Orit has asked have the same capability for MCU and to add supported protocols to the mcuInfo structure. As Paul states the use of this structure was added to other RAS calls for different reasons, to signal which protocols will be needed for the call, mostly Fax so it can be routed through a gateway with the right support. The voice part that Boaz mention is to specify the capability to support non multiplexed voice (not H.320) or PSTN call on the switched network side and not for voice only in H.323. Notice that all the information is about protocols and rates and not about video or audio algorithms. I understand what Boaz is suggesting but agree with Paul that the structures today are not supporting it. Furthermore I would claim that the initial design requires that H.320/ H.323 gateways will be able to route at least G.711 and H.261 CIF the mandatory codec and that is why there will be no problem with routing the call. Fax support is not mandatory and that is why the information is needed. I think that the idea of the originating endpoint trying to define the call capability will be a problem with the protocol and with the end to end solution. The capability negotiation is there to find the optimal communication mode. If the gateway support H.323 and voice protocols only it means that it can do only voice calls. So if the endpoint will request, according to the current proposal, in the requested protocol voice and not H.320 then the gatekeeper will not need to route it to a gateway supporting H.320. To summarize I cannot see a need for such information. Thanks Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:44 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Video experts: Proposal to add video to Desired/SupportedProtocols Boaz, I agree with such a proposal-- I need to look at the details a bit more closely, but there is definitely a need to be able to signal at the outset of a call what kind of resources are needed. One of the primary reasons for this original text was so that, when a fax call was going to be placed, we could better guarantee that we would get routed to a gateway that supports fax. The names of the structures and fields were derived from already existing structures. One thing to note is that you also need to consider capacity. Endpoints have the ability to report capacity. We would need to be able to report on what "video capacity" is available. Also, the "SupportedProtocols" is a choice. I would guess, though, that you would want to include "voice" and "video" at the same time-- certainly, H.320 and video at the same time makes sense. In any case, we need to have some way of logically indicating the capacity and also indicating what resources are expected to be consumed in a call. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boaz Michaely" <boaz.michaely(a)ties.itu.ch> To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:14 PM Subject: Video experts: Proposal to add video to Desired/SupportedProtocols > Hi all, > I would like some feedback from the video experts for a contribution I wish to > make to expand SupportedProtocols, which has recently been added for use in > ARQ, LRQ, SETUP, and Annex G Access Request messages. (ref: D-347 of 0200_Gen) > > > "desiredProtocols - Identifies the type of protocols, in order of preference, > the originating endpoint desires for its call (e.g., voice or fax). A > resolving entity may use this field to locate an endpoint that also supports > the protocol, giving consideration to the order of preference." > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objective of this addition, as > documented in D-347 is not fully achieved, since video capabilities cannot be > expressed. (it also strikes me that *protocols* may not be the best description > of the capabilities being negotiated here.) > > If we were to complete the proposal, the change would probably look as below. > My specific question to the video experts: What should the VideoCaps structure > contain and how would it be used (clearly we do not intend to replace H.245 > here). Thus, is there any good reason to conform to the structure of VoiceCaps - > including the location of the '...' and the inclusion of 'SupportedPrefixes' ? > (is it ever used ?) > > > SupportedProtocols ::= CHOICE > { > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter, > h310 H310Caps, > h320 H320Caps, > h321 H321Caps, > h322 H322Caps, > h323 H323Caps, > h324 H324Caps, > voice VoiceCaps, > t120-only T120OnlyCaps, > ..., > nonStandardProtocol NonStandardProtocol, > t38FaxAnnexbOnly T38FaxAnnexbOnlyCaps > ---BEGIN > , > video VideoCaps > ---END > } > > VoiceCaps ::= SEQUENCE > { > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, > ..., > dataRatesSupported SEQUENCE OF DataRate OPTIONAL, > supportedPrefixes SEQUENCE OF SupportedPrefix > } > > ---BEGIN > VideoCaps ::= SEQUENCE > { > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, > ..., > dataRatesSupported SEQUENCE OF DataRate OPTIONAL, > supportedPrefixes SEQUENCE OF SupportedPrefix > } > > ---END > > > Boaz Michaely > Senior System Architect, Corporate > Comverse Network Systems > Tel: +972 (3) 766-3844 , Mobile +972 (51) 62-58-44 > mailto:boaz.michaely@ties.itu.int > http://people.itu.int/~michaely > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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

AW: ASN.1 question on supporting Redirecting Number in Annex G
by Horvath Ernst 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Mr. Michaely, the transport of information elements in their SCN encoded form is also foreseen in H.450 protocols. For this purpose H.450.1 defines the "generic" type H225InformationElement, which is a simple OCTET STRING. Within the octet string, any number of concatenated information elements can be embedded. The idea is that the whole string can be handed over unchanged to the Q.931 parsing process. Ernst Horvath > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Logan Modahala [mailto:lmodahal@cisco.com] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 24. Oktober 2000 22:15 > An: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Betreff: Re: ASN.1 question on supporting Redirecting Number > in Annex G > > Mr. Michaely: > > We can define something like this: > > ieInfo IEInfoType OPTIONAL > > IEInfoType ::= SEQUENCE > { > ieID INTEGER (1..255), > ieContent OCTET STRING > ..... > } > > > ieID will identify ProgIndIE, RedirectIE and so forth based > on the IE Id assigned > in PSTN world. > ieContent is the actual encoding of the IE as per the Q.931 spec. > > - Logan > > > > Boaz Michaely wrote: > > > All, > > > > Following up the work started at Lovely Portland, we are > investigating the > > required additions to the AccessRequest et. al. messages of > H.225.0 Annex G. > > I will post a seperate note on that, but along the way, an > interesting question > > poped: > > > > The scenario: A VoIP network that is trying to terminate a > call in PSTN, over > > ISDN. The response from the CO indicates the call diversion > and includes the > > redirecting number element (which also indicates the > diversion reason) > > With H.225.0 v4 addition (TD-45 Osaka), this information > can be naturaly > > translated into H.225.0 setup message, while before that > the only way to convey > > the information was to translate it into H.450.3 > > Now, the network GK wishes to forward the call to the > Service Zone for call > > completion. In order to provide this information over > AccessRequest, we may add > > both H.450 element as well as RedirectingNumber element > (for the questionable > > sake of not mandating H.450 structures to do so). > > > > Now to my question: > > Assuming that indeed there is objection to mandate H.450 > structure for this > > purpose, how does one describe the RedirectingNumber IE > within the ASN.1 > > structure of H.225.0 Annex G ? > > After all, RedirectingNumber is imported from Q.931, and as > such is bitwise > > encoded. (there is probably a proper term for that which, > in my ignorance, I > > am unaware off - sorry). > > I have not seen any similar case, so the only solution I > came up with is to > > embed it in a BIT STRING. Is this realy how it should be > done ? If so, what > > would the exact syntax be ? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Boaz Michaely > > Senior System Architect, Corporate > > Comverse Network Systems > > Tel: +972 (3) 766-3844 , Mobile +972 (51) 62-58-44 > > mailto:boaz.michaely@ties.itu.int > > http://people.itu.int/~michaely > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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

Video experts: Proposal to add video to Desired/SupportedProtocols
by Boaz Michaely 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Hi all, I would like some feedback from the video experts for a contribution I wish to make to expand SupportedProtocols, which has recently been added for use in ARQ, LRQ, SETUP, and Annex G Access Request messages. (ref: D-347 of 0200_Gen) "desiredProtocols - Identifies the type of protocols, in order of preference, the originating endpoint desires for its call (e.g., voice or fax). A resolving entity may use this field to locate an endpoint that also supports the protocol, giving consideration to the order of preference." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objective of this addition, as documented in D-347 is not fully achieved, since video capabilities cannot be expressed. (it also strikes me that *protocols* may not be the best description of the capabilities being negotiated here.) If we were to complete the proposal, the change would probably look as below. My specific question to the video experts: What should the VideoCaps structure contain and how would it be used (clearly we do not intend to replace H.245 here). Thus, is there any good reason to conform to the structure of VoiceCaps - including the location of the '...' and the inclusion of 'SupportedPrefixes' ? (is it ever used ?) SupportedProtocols ::= CHOICE { nonStandardData NonStandardParameter, h310 H310Caps, h320 H320Caps, h321 H321Caps, h322 H322Caps, h323 H323Caps, h324 H324Caps, voice VoiceCaps, t120-only T120OnlyCaps, ..., nonStandardProtocol NonStandardProtocol, t38FaxAnnexbOnly T38FaxAnnexbOnlyCaps ---BEGIN , video VideoCaps ---END } VoiceCaps ::= SEQUENCE { nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, ..., dataRatesSupported SEQUENCE OF DataRate OPTIONAL, supportedPrefixes SEQUENCE OF SupportedPrefix } ---BEGIN VideoCaps ::= SEQUENCE { nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL, ..., dataRatesSupported SEQUENCE OF DataRate OPTIONAL, supportedPrefixes SEQUENCE OF SupportedPrefix } ---END Boaz Michaely Senior System Architect, Corporate Comverse Network Systems Tel: +972 (3) 766-3844 , Mobile +972 (51) 62-58-44 mailto:boaz.michaely@ties.itu.int http://people.itu.int/~michaely ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

Re: APC numbers for Geneva
by Sakae OKUBO 24 Oct '00

24 Oct '00

Dear Mr. Fortinsky, Mr. Audet, Mr. Luthi, In response to your requests, the following APC numbers have been allocated to your contributions: APC-1984 Editor (M Fortinsky) H.225.0 Annex G version 2 APC-1985 VocalTec Communications H.225.0 Annex G Profile Negotiation APC-1986 VocalTec Communications Clarifications Related to H.225.0 Annex G Service ID's APC-1987 Editor (F Audet) H.323 Annex M.1 - QSIG tunnelling APC-1988 PictureTel RTP Payload Types in H.245 APC-1989 PictureTel Proposed New H.245 messages for H.263++ Annex U and Annex W.6.3.12 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 *********************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

ASN.1 question on supporting Redirecting Number in Annex G
by Boaz Michaely 24 Oct '00

24 Oct '00

All, Following up the work started at Lovely Portland, we are investigating the required additions to the AccessRequest et. al. messages of H.225.0 Annex G. I will post a seperate note on that, but along the way, an interesting question poped: The scenario: A VoIP network that is trying to terminate a call in PSTN, over ISDN. The response from the CO indicates the call diversion and includes the redirecting number element (which also indicates the diversion reason) With H.225.0 v4 addition (TD-45 Osaka), this information can be naturaly translated into H.225.0 setup message, while before that the only way to convey the information was to translate it into H.450.3 Now, the network GK wishes to forward the call to the Service Zone for call completion. In order to provide this information over AccessRequest, we may add both H.450 element as well as RedirectingNumber element (for the questionable sake of not mandating H.450 structures to do so). Now to my question: Assuming that indeed there is objection to mandate H.450 structure for this purpose, how does one describe the RedirectingNumber IE within the ASN.1 structure of H.225.0 Annex G ? After all, RedirectingNumber is imported from Q.931, and as such is bitwise encoded. (there is probably a proper term for that which, in my ignorance, I am unaware off - sorry). I have not seen any similar case, so the only solution I came up with is to embed it in a BIT STRING. Is this realy how it should be done ? If so, what would the exact syntax be ? Thanks, Boaz Michaely Senior System Architect, Corporate Comverse Network Systems Tel: +972 (3) 766-3844 , Mobile +972 (51) 62-58-44 mailto:boaz.michaely@ties.itu.int http://people.itu.int/~michaely ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

List of registered documents for the 9-10 November meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 24 Oct '00

24 Oct '00

1 0

Re: APC number request for Nov Rapp Meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 24 Oct '00

24 Oct '00

1 0

Re: APC numbers for November meeting
by Sakae OKUBO 23 Oct '00

23 Oct '00

Dear Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Roy, In response to your requests, the following APC numbers have been allocated to your contributions: APC-1974 Editor (R Callaghan) H.450.12 - Common Information Additional Network Feature for H.323 APC-1975 Editor (R Callaghan) H.323 Annex M.3 - Tunneling DSS1 in H.323 APC-1976 Siemens H.323 Annex M.3 - Tunneling DSS1 in H.323 - Architecture APC-1977 Siemens Deficiencies of H.225.0 for a native transport of DSS1 APC-1978 AT&T Mobility Architecture and Protocol: H.323 Application Specific and Generic Value Added Services APC-1979 AT&T Application Layer QOS Signalling Architecture and Protocol: H.323 Application Specific and Generic Value Added Services APC-1980 AT&T Common Value Added Intelligent Backend Services (BES) Protocols for all Applications 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 *********************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0