- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 19 Sep '00

19 Sep '00

Hi, Bob: Let me explain: Please see the Portland meeting minutes based on the AT&T contributions. The contribution (Comments on H.323 Annex H) clearly describes that VLF <-> HLF communications protocols are NOT within the scope of Q.13/16. The meeting minutes note that the contribution has been accepted, although some items have not been accepted. Based on this, it is interpreted that Rapporteur (Q.13/16) is yet to provide his consent that it is within the scope of Q.13/16 before we go to the next step. That is why, the question has been raised not to include VLF <-> HLF communications protocols and others at this point of time by the editor while we have not done our primary job (why should we be in a hurry to duplicate something skipping the main thing?). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:38 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Roy, It is clear that you did not understand. 1) I said that the scope of Q.13/16 is defined by the rapporteur of Q.13/16. If he determines that VLF <----> is in the scope of Q.13/16, then it is in the scope. Disagreements can be appealed to the Working Party or the Study Group. As I understand it, it has been determined to be in scope. 2) A common protocol is a great idea, but not mandatory. There are many examples where the ITU has duplicate and competing standards. Let accept the fact the it is in scope and proceed with useful work As a thought, based on your arguments, Q13/16 should not work on QOS because there is work in SG11 on this subject. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:06 PM To: Callaghan, Robert Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: RE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Bob: It appears that you are agreeing with the fact there should be a common standard where it is necessary. For example, H.245 and others are the example of WP2. In this respect, we can also do the same for VLF <-> HLF, AuF <-> HLF, and others because all applications like H.323, H.321, H.324, etc. and others. First of all, it has to be clarified that it is the scope of a given question, and then the all companies need to be given the fair chances to bring contributions to solve the same problem. Please note that it has been said time and again (contributions had been brought) that these items are not within the scope of Q.13/16 and contributions were not brought assuming that we MUST not develop one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, another VLF <-> HLF for H.321, and another one for H.324, and so on. There is nothing fency about this because it deals with mobile users. Please note that VLF <-> HLF communications are not specific to "MULTIMEDIA" or for the "IP Transport network" per se. We had a meeting with SG11 and SG16 to address how HLF and VLF protocols are being developed in SG11 (IMT-2000). Again coming to the fact, we have not done the job for the first 1: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00. Once we do this part, then we will enough time what needs to be done with others. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:24 AM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: QRE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Roy, It is the charter of Q13/16 to develop of Multimedia over IP applications. It is not limited to H.323, although this is the primary standard of interest. H.248 is a standard that is independent from H.323, but in the scope of multimedia over IP. This is in the scope of Q13/16. Now SG9 is standardizing MGCP in competition with H.248. In that SG9 is chartered with standards related to cable systems and MGCP is used in the cable industry, it is in their scope (Not good; but true). Annex G, is clearly a backend service that is used in support of H.323. It is also in the scope of Q13/16. VLF <-- --> HLF communication is clearly analogous with Annex G. Based on this analogy, it can be in the scope of Q13/16. Yes, IMT-2000 covers the next generation of mobile products. The last time I looked, SG16 is a participant in IMT-2000 regarding the multimedia applications. Based on this, any work done in SG16 regarding the support of multimedia application is, by definition, part of IMT-2000. A common solution for backend services is good. However, the operative word is common, as in fully supports all needs. Your example of H.245 is good. However, a focused solution that does not support all needs is worse than no solution. In your knowledge, do the solutions proposed by SG11 cover the needs of H.323? As an example, does the transport method scale to the smaller sized systems supported by H.323? If SG11 is truly considering the needs of H.323 this is very good; but this is not consistent with the past. As an example, they insist that all call control signaling must be ISUP, which does not scale to the smaller sizes. I think that Q13/16 should move forward with the standards necessary to support multimedia over IP. I accept the ruling of the rapporteur as to the scope of this work. I do not think that energy should be expended with further debates on this subject. If someone does not agree with the decision of the rapporteur, then the decision should be appealed to the working party or study group chairman. This is far more effective that the current argumentation. Just my opinion, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:48 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Paul: I am glad that you have asked this question. HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK. (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life. The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others. More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- > phase. > > More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the > primary objectives are clarified. > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Callaghan, Robert 19 Sep '00

19 Sep '00

Roy, It is clear that you did not understand. 1) I said that the scope of Q.13/16 is defined by the rapporteur of Q.13/16. If he determines that VLF <----> is in the scope of Q.13/16, then it is in the scope. Disagreements can be appealed to the Working Party or the Study Group. As I understand it, it has been determined to be in scope. 2) A common protocol is a great idea, but not mandatory. There are many examples where the ITU has duplicate and competing standards. Let accept the fact the it is in scope and proceed with useful work As a thought, based on your arguments, Q13/16 should not work on QOS because there is work in SG11 on this subject. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:06 PM To: Callaghan, Robert Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: RE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Bob: It appears that you are agreeing with the fact there should be a common standard where it is necessary. For example, H.245 and others are the example of WP2. In this respect, we can also do the same for VLF <-> HLF, AuF <-> HLF, and others because all applications like H.323, H.321, H.324, etc. and others. First of all, it has to be clarified that it is the scope of a given question, and then the all companies need to be given the fair chances to bring contributions to solve the same problem. Please note that it has been said time and again (contributions had been brought) that these items are not within the scope of Q.13/16 and contributions were not brought assuming that we MUST not develop one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, another VLF <-> HLF for H.321, and another one for H.324, and so on. There is nothing fency about this because it deals with mobile users. Please note that VLF <-> HLF communications are not specific to "MULTIMEDIA" or for the "IP Transport network" per se. We had a meeting with SG11 and SG16 to address how HLF and VLF protocols are being developed in SG11 (IMT-2000). Again coming to the fact, we have not done the job for the first 1: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00. Once we do this part, then we will enough time what needs to be done with others. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:24 AM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: QRE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Roy, It is the charter of Q13/16 to develop of Multimedia over IP applications. It is not limited to H.323, although this is the primary standard of interest. H.248 is a standard that is independent from H.323, but in the scope of multimedia over IP. This is in the scope of Q13/16. Now SG9 is standardizing MGCP in competition with H.248. In that SG9 is chartered with standards related to cable systems and MGCP is used in the cable industry, it is in their scope (Not good; but true). Annex G, is clearly a backend service that is used in support of H.323. It is also in the scope of Q13/16. VLF <-- --> HLF communication is clearly analogous with Annex G. Based on this analogy, it can be in the scope of Q13/16. Yes, IMT-2000 covers the next generation of mobile products. The last time I looked, SG16 is a participant in IMT-2000 regarding the multimedia applications. Based on this, any work done in SG16 regarding the support of multimedia application is, by definition, part of IMT-2000. A common solution for backend services is good. However, the operative word is common, as in fully supports all needs. Your example of H.245 is good. However, a focused solution that does not support all needs is worse than no solution. In your knowledge, do the solutions proposed by SG11 cover the needs of H.323? As an example, does the transport method scale to the smaller sized systems supported by H.323? If SG11 is truly considering the needs of H.323 this is very good; but this is not consistent with the past. As an example, they insist that all call control signaling must be ISUP, which does not scale to the smaller sizes. I think that Q13/16 should move forward with the standards necessary to support multimedia over IP. I accept the ruling of the rapporteur as to the scope of this work. I do not think that energy should be expended with further debates on this subject. If someone does not agree with the decision of the rapporteur, then the decision should be appealed to the working party or study group chairman. This is far more effective that the current argumentation. Just my opinion, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:48 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Paul: I am glad that you have asked this question. HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK. (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life. The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others. More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- > phase. > > More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the > primary objectives are clarified. > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 19 Sep '00

19 Sep '00

Hi, Bob: It appears that you are agreeing with the fact there should be a common standard where it is necessary. For example, H.245 and others are the example of WP2. In this respect, we can also do the same for VLF <-> HLF, AuF <-> HLF, and others because all applications like H.323, H.321, H.324, etc. and others. First of all, it has to be clarified that it is the scope of a given question, and then the all companies need to be given the fair chances to bring contributions to solve the same problem. Please note that it has been said time and again (contributions had been brought) that these items are not within the scope of Q.13/16 and contributions were not brought assuming that we MUST not develop one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, another VLF <-> HLF for H.321, and another one for H.324, and so on. There is nothing fency about this because it deals with mobile users. Please note that VLF <-> HLF communications are not specific to "MULTIMEDIA" or for the "IP Transport network" per se. We had a meeting with SG11 and SG16 to address how HLF and VLF protocols are being developed in SG11 (IMT-2000). Again coming to the fact, we have not done the job for the first 1: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00. Once we do this part, then we will enough time what needs to be done with others. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:24 AM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Cc: 'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16' Subject: QRE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Roy, It is the charter of Q13/16 to develop of Multimedia over IP applications. It is not limited to H.323, although this is the primary standard of interest. H.248 is a standard that is independent from H.323, but in the scope of multimedia over IP. This is in the scope of Q13/16. Now SG9 is standardizing MGCP in competition with H.248. In that SG9 is chartered with standards related to cable systems and MGCP is used in the cable industry, it is in their scope (Not good; but true). Annex G, is clearly a backend service that is used in support of H.323. It is also in the scope of Q13/16. VLF <-- --> HLF communication is clearly analogous with Annex G. Based on this analogy, it can be in the scope of Q13/16. Yes, IMT-2000 covers the next generation of mobile products. The last time I looked, SG16 is a participant in IMT-2000 regarding the multimedia applications. Based on this, any work done in SG16 regarding the support of multimedia application is, by definition, part of IMT-2000. A common solution for backend services is good. However, the operative word is common, as in fully supports all needs. Your example of H.245 is good. However, a focused solution that does not support all needs is worse than no solution. In your knowledge, do the solutions proposed by SG11 cover the needs of H.323? As an example, does the transport method scale to the smaller sized systems supported by H.323? If SG11 is truly considering the needs of H.323 this is very good; but this is not consistent with the past. As an example, they insist that all call control signaling must be ISUP, which does not scale to the smaller sizes. I think that Q13/16 should move forward with the standards necessary to support multimedia over IP. I accept the ruling of the rapporteur as to the scope of this work. I do not think that energy should be expended with further debates on this subject. If someone does not agree with the decision of the rapporteur, then the decision should be appealed to the working party or study group chairman. This is far more effective that the current argumentation. Just my opinion, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:48 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Paul: I am glad that you have asked this question. HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK. (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life. The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others. More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- > phase. > > More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the > primary objectives are clarified. > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

1 0

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 19 Sep '00

19 Sep '00

Hi, Everyone: Let me repeat it again: We have applications H.323, H.321, etc. These are packet-based networks. There are other protocols like H.324 etc, that are optimized for PSTN/ISDN networks. Now the application/middleware layer control protocol like H.245 is applicable for all applications whether an application is sent over the packet networks or circuit-switched networks. Similarly, application/middleware layer VLF <-> HLF and other protocols are nothing do with packet vs. circuit-switched networks. It MUST be a common protocol. There is nothing specific in VLF <-> HLF with respect packet vs. circuit or connection oriented vs connectionless. People are trying to create confusions for fulfilling a VERY narrow objectives ignoring the BIG picture of the ITU. Even for the sake of argument, if we consider the applications only for the packet-switched networks, then we MUST develop the generic protocols like VLF <-> HLF and others that can be used by all protocols like H.323, H.321, etc. that are used by the packet-switched networks. The same argument is true for QOS, billing, authentication, directory, etc, and others. Let us not confuse things. Let us take another case: RSVP, DiffServ, etc. are the network layer QOS protocol. These network layer QOS services can be used by any applications (e.g., H.323, SIP, etc.) over the IP network. That is why, we MUST not develop one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.321, and another VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.324, etc. It is a mess and defeats the fundamental purpose for creating of COMMON standards by the ITU. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:34 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi Radhika, Paul & others Shortly, my understanding is that IMT-2000 is not defining protocols suitable (or intended for) packet-based networks, i.e. H.323 Systems on top of e.g. IP, but they concentrate on more general level definitions. While I do think that we need to consider IMT-2000 as well as other 3G standardization bodies (I would argue that 3GPP is the dominant one at the moment) and use as much of the specifications available as possible, I still think that we need to make our own specifications for H.323. Even if we just re-use some existing protocols, the usage of these needs to be clearly specified in the context of H.323. -Jaakko > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: 17. September 2000 3:48 > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > Hi, Paul: > > I am glad that you have asked this question. > > HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are > necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these > protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last > Feb'00 in Geneva. > These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. > > All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the > H.323 GK. > > (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control > protocol that > is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) > > If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are > specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular > protocol. This > is a fact of life. > > The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, > billing, and > others. > > More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. > > Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol > for supporting > mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 > (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. > (Contributions > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the > solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:45 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > Radhika, et al, > > I have to confess that I have had no time to really follow > the Annex H work, > but I do have a question to toss out here: > > Why do you consider the VLF or HLF functions outside the > scope of Q13/16? I > assume that these functions are IP-based (or at least used > with the same > call signaling transport as the H.323 system) and integrate > with the H.323 > functions. > > You stated below that these functions are common for all > mobile systems. I > will not argue that point, but will a common solution be the most > appropriate for H.323 systems? I would guess that trying to > introduce a > generic mechanism may or may not be the best solution for H.323. > > I'd like to hear counter arguments to yours. Apparently > others felt that > these functions were necessary for H.323 systems and should be defined > within the H.323 framework. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 AM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains > > basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, > the comments > > provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains > the same as > stated > > earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows: > > > > The Annex should be divided into two parts: > > > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 > (e.g., H.225.0 > [RAS, > > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. > (Contributions > > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > > > Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to > Mobility > > (or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF. > > > > So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) > submitted by the > > editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within > the scope of > > Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the > scope of Q.13/16). > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > +1 732 420 1580 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of > H.323 (e.g., > > H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of > SG16 Feb'00, > > Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ > messages > > need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there > is nothing > > specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of > mobility, > > the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that > contributions > > can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are > there to note > the > > issues. > > > > The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic > extension > > of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end > services > > related to Mobility (or value-added services related > mobility)containing > VLF > > and HLF. > > > > Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is > a general > > service related to mobility. Every application that needs > mobility may > like > > to use these services. This will be addressed in the light > of the all > mobile > > applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is > > out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes > this decision. > > > > Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the > fixed users. So, > this > > is a generic service that needs to be developed for both > fixed and mobile > > users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any > > specification related to AuF should be moved to the base > H.323 spec as > well > > because it belong to both and the standard should be developed > accordingly. > > > > For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 > only in the > first > > phase. > > > > More specific technical comments will be given for each > point once the > > primary objectives are clarified. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have uploaded MD-106 to URL: > > > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-10 6_H323AnnexHDr > aft.zip . > The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and > contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document > so far was, for some reason, a total mess). > The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of > TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of > this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes > the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex > (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of > reference point A is not practical).". > The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand > from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference > points B and C instead of A and B. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Jaakko Sundquist * > +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! > jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.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

1 0

H.323 Annex I
by Baese Gero 19 Sep '00

19 Sep '00

Dear Experts, at the Portland Meeting a controversial discussion arised about the new Annex I specification. Several misunderstandings between the participants as well as about the outcome of the Osaka Meeting were the reasons. At the moment we(Siemens) are trying to establish a co-operation with UCLA as well as the editor of the Annex I in order to find the best possible solution for the standard. We addressed both of them directly. If a merger of the both proposals will be possible we will work it out together and present it at the next rapporteurs meeting. Further we want to ask all experts for their technical assistance. Please provide us with more requirements as well as scenarios you can think of Annex I would be used for. Best Wishes Gero Baese ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com

2 1

APC-1950
by Glen Freundlich 18 Sep '00

18 Sep '00

Dear Colleagues, I have placed APC-1950, a liaison from the BICC group in SG11, in the Incoming directory of avc-site. Note that the zip file contains 5 files. Regards, Glen

1 0

QRE: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Callaghan, Robert 18 Sep '00

18 Sep '00

Roy, It is the charter of Q13/16 to develop of Multimedia over IP applications. It is not limited to H.323, although this is the primary standard of interest. H.248 is a standard that is independent from H.323, but in the scope of multimedia over IP. This is in the scope of Q13/16. Now SG9 is standardizing MGCP in competition with H.248. In that SG9 is chartered with standards related to cable systems and MGCP is used in the cable industry, it is in their scope (Not good; but true). Annex G, is clearly a backend service that is used in support of H.323. It is also in the scope of Q13/16. VLF <-- --> HLF communication is clearly analogous with Annex G. Based on this analogy, it can be in the scope of Q13/16. Yes, IMT-2000 covers the next generation of mobile products. The last time I looked, SG16 is a participant in IMT-2000 regarding the multimedia applications. Based on this, any work done in SG16 regarding the support of multimedia application is, by definition, part of IMT-2000. A common solution for backend services is good. However, the operative word is common, as in fully supports all needs. Your example of H.245 is good. However, a focused solution that does not support all needs is worse than no solution. In your knowledge, do the solutions proposed by SG11 cover the needs of H.323? As an example, does the transport method scale to the smaller sized systems supported by H.323? If SG11 is truly considering the needs of H.323 this is very good; but this is not consistent with the past. As an example, they insist that all call control signaling must be ISUP, which does not scale to the smaller sizes. I think that Q13/16 should move forward with the standards necessary to support multimedia over IP. I accept the ruling of the rapporteur as to the scope of this work. I do not think that energy should be expended with further debates on this subject. If someone does not agree with the decision of the rapporteur, then the decision should be appealed to the working party or study group chairman. This is far more effective that the current argumentation. Just my opinion, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:48 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Paul: I am glad that you have asked this question. HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK. (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life. The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others. More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:45 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Radhika, et al, I have to confess that I have had no time to really follow the Annex H work, but I do have a question to toss out here: Why do you consider the VLF or HLF functions outside the scope of Q13/16? I assume that these functions are IP-based (or at least used with the same call signaling transport as the H.323 system) and integrate with the H.323 functions. You stated below that these functions are common for all mobile systems. I will not argue that point, but will a common solution be the most appropriate for H.323 systems? I would guess that trying to introduce a generic mechanism may or may not be the best solution for H.323. I'd like to hear counter arguments to yours. Apparently others felt that these functions were necessary for H.323 systems and should be defined within the H.323 framework. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > Hi, Everyone: > > The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains > basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, the comments > provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains the same as stated > earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows: > > The Annex should be divided into two parts: > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to Mobility > (or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF. > > So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the > editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within the scope of > Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the scope of Q.13/16). > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > +1 732 420 1580 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check > > Hi, Everyone: > > The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of H.323 (e.g., > H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of SG16 Feb'00, > Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ messages > need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there is nothing > specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of mobility, > the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that contributions > can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are there to note the > issues. > > The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic extension > of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end services > related to Mobility (or value-added services related mobility)containing VLF > and HLF. > > Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is a general > service related to mobility. Every application that needs mobility may like > to use these services. This will be addressed in the light of the all mobile > applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is > out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes this decision. > > Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the fixed users. So, this > is a generic service that needs to be developed for both fixed and mobile > users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any > specification related to AuF should be moved to the base H.323 spec as well > because it belong to both and the standard should be developed accordingly. > > For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 only in the first > phase. > > More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the > primary objectives are clarified. > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > > > Hi all, > > I have uploaded MD-106 to URL: > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-106_H323AnnexHDr > aft.zip . > The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and > contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document > so far was, for some reason, a total mess). > The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of > TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of > this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes > the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex > (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of > reference point A is not practical).". > The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand > from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference > points B and C instead of A and B. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Jaakko Sundquist * > +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! > jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.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

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Jaakko Sundquist 18 Sep '00

18 Sep '00

Hi Radhika, Paul & others Shortly, my understanding is that IMT-2000 is not defining protocols suitable (or intended for) packet-based networks, i.e. H.323 Systems on top of e.g. IP, but they concentrate on more general level definitions. While I do think that we need to consider IMT-2000 as well as other 3G standardization bodies (I would argue that 3GPP is the dominant one at the moment) and use as much of the specifications available as possible, I still think that we need to make our own specifications for H.323. Even if we just re-use some existing protocols, the usage of these needs to be clearly specified in the context of H.323. -Jaakko > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] > Sent: 17. September 2000 3:48 > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > Hi, Paul: > > I am glad that you have asked this question. > > HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are > necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these > protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last > Feb'00 in Geneva. > These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. > > All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the > H.323 GK. > > (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control > protocol that > is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) > > If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are > specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular > protocol. This > is a fact of life. > > The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, > billing, and > others. > > More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. > > Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol > for supporting > mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 > (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. > (Contributions > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the > solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:45 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > Radhika, et al, > > I have to confess that I have had no time to really follow > the Annex H work, > but I do have a question to toss out here: > > Why do you consider the VLF or HLF functions outside the > scope of Q13/16? I > assume that these functions are IP-based (or at least used > with the same > call signaling transport as the H.323 system) and integrate > with the H.323 > functions. > > You stated below that these functions are common for all > mobile systems. I > will not argue that point, but will a common solution be the most > appropriate for H.323 systems? I would guess that trying to > introduce a > generic mechanism may or may not be the best solution for H.323. > > I'd like to hear counter arguments to yours. Apparently > others felt that > these functions were necessary for H.323 systems and should be defined > within the H.323 framework. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 AM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H > draft uploaded > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains > > basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, > the comments > > provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains > the same as > stated > > earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows: > > > > The Annex should be divided into two parts: > > > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 > (e.g., H.225.0 > [RAS, > > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. > (Contributions > > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > > > Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to > Mobility > > (or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF. > > > > So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) > submitted by the > > editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within > the scope of > > Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the > scope of Q.13/16). > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > +1 732 420 1580 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of > H.323 (e.g., > > H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of > SG16 Feb'00, > > Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ > messages > > need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there > is nothing > > specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of > mobility, > > the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that > contributions > > can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are > there to note > the > > issues. > > > > The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic > extension > > of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end > services > > related to Mobility (or value-added services related > mobility)containing > VLF > > and HLF. > > > > Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is > a general > > service related to mobility. Every application that needs > mobility may > like > > to use these services. This will be addressed in the light > of the all > mobile > > applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is > > out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes > this decision. > > > > Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the > fixed users. So, > this > > is a generic service that needs to be developed for both > fixed and mobile > > users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any > > specification related to AuF should be moved to the base > H.323 spec as > well > > because it belong to both and the standard should be developed > accordingly. > > > > For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 > only in the > first > > phase. > > > > More specific technical comments will be given for each > point once the > > primary objectives are clarified. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have uploaded MD-106 to URL: > > > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-10 6_H323AnnexHDr > aft.zip . > The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and > contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document > so far was, for some reason, a total mess). > The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of > TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of > this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes > the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex > (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of > reference point A is not practical).". > The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand > from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference > points B and C instead of A and B. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Jaakko Sundquist * > +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! > jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.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

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 16 Sep '00

16 Sep '00

Hi, Paul: I am glad that you have asked this question. HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others. All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK. (An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.) If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life. The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others. More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility. Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:45 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Radhika, et al, I have to confess that I have had no time to really follow the Annex H work, but I do have a question to toss out here: Why do you consider the VLF or HLF functions outside the scope of Q13/16? I assume that these functions are IP-based (or at least used with the same call signaling transport as the H.323 system) and integrate with the H.323 functions. You stated below that these functions are common for all mobile systems. I will not argue that point, but will a common solution be the most appropriate for H.323 systems? I would guess that trying to introduce a generic mechanism may or may not be the best solution for H.323. I'd like to hear counter arguments to yours. Apparently others felt that these functions were necessary for H.323 systems and should be defined within the H.323 framework. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > Hi, Everyone: > > The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains > basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, the comments > provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains the same as stated > earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows: > > The Annex should be divided into two parts: > > Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, > Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions > are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) > > Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to Mobility > (or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF. > > So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the > editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within the scope of > Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the scope of Q.13/16). > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > +1 732 420 1580 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check > > Hi, Everyone: > > The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of H.323 (e.g., > H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of SG16 Feb'00, > Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ messages > need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there is nothing > specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of mobility, > the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that contributions > can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are there to note the > issues. > > The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic extension > of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end services > related to Mobility (or value-added services related mobility)containing VLF > and HLF. > > Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is a general > service related to mobility. Every application that needs mobility may like > to use these services. This will be addressed in the light of the all mobile > applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is > out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes this decision. > > Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the fixed users. So, this > is a generic service that needs to be developed for both fixed and mobile > users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any > specification related to AuF should be moved to the base H.323 spec as well > because it belong to both and the standard should be developed accordingly. > > For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 only in the first > phase. > > More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the > primary objectives are clarified. > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded > > > Hi all, > > I have uploaded MD-106 to URL: > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-106_H323AnnexHDr > aft.zip . > The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and > contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document > so far was, for some reason, a total mess). > The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of > TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of > this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes > the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex > (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of > reference point A is not practical).". > The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand > from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference > points B and C instead of A and B. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Jaakko Sundquist * > +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! > jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.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

Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
by Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO 16 Sep '00

16 Sep '00

Hi, Everyone: The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, the comments provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains the same as stated earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows: The Annex should be divided into two parts: Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.) Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to Mobility (or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF. So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within the scope of Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the scope of Q.13/16). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check Hi, Everyone: The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of SG16 Feb'00, Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ messages need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there is nothing specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of mobility, the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that contributions can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are there to note the issues. The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic extension of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end services related to Mobility (or value-added services related mobility)containing VLF and HLF. Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is a general service related to mobility. Every application that needs mobility may like to use these services. This will be addressed in the light of the all mobile applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes this decision. Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the fixed users. So, this is a generic service that needs to be developed for both fixed and mobile users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any specification related to AuF should be moved to the base H.323 spec as well because it belong to both and the standard should be developed accordingly. For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 only in the first phase. More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the primary objectives are clarified. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi all, I have uploaded MD-106 to URL: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-106_H323AnnexHDr aft.zip . The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document so far was, for some reason, a total mess). The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of reference point A is not practical).". The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference points B and C instead of A and B. ------------------------------------------------ Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist(a)nokia.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