- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
by Orit Levin 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Hello! I can see two (hardly overlapping) directions to move forward: (1) H.323 - SIP interworking by mapping/translation (2) Definition of how H.323 takes use of Internet services being defined by IETF In the regards to (1), my personal preference would be to leave this work under the IETF process. I suspect they had a perfect reason being the first to start this work. It doesn't mean SG16 shouldn't prevent them from making mistakes on H.323 side. In regards to (2), I think it has to be addressed by H.323 as a part of H.323. I would love to see more comments on this (less political) part of the work. In the meanwhile I am putting all the suggestions and alternatives in the updated paper (which is not attached yet). Best Regards, Orit Levin RADVision Inc. 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) Fax: 1 201 529 3516 www.radvision.com orit(a)radvision.com -----Original Message----- From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(a)CS.COLUMBIA.EDU> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2000 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. >Since my name popped up in a recent email discussion, a few remarks: > >1) Yes, the SIP-H.323 list was created by myself; it is open to anybody. >While its creation was triggered by the interest generated by a proposal >(Internet draft) written by Kundan Singh (a student of mine) and myself, >it is open to any discussion related to the topic of interworking. >(Discussions about the relative merits of protocols are decidedly less >appreciated.) Whether people use this mailing list or create something >new and different is obviously beyond my control. > >The creation of the mailing list was done without any implied IETF >endorsement or even endorsement of other SIP authors. (I hope they don't >mind too much...) > >2) In this context, there is one important difference between the ITU >and IETF standardization process which particularly affects this >discussion. While all ITU recommendations are "standards", most IETF >RFCs are not. For the case at hand, it would probably be considered >inappropriate for a standards-track RFC except, with lots of stretch of >the imagination, a BCP (best current practice). If an interoperability >document does get published within the IETF, it is likely to appear as >an Informational or possibly Experimental RFC. In this particular case, >as long as the signaling gateway looks like a valid SIP or H.323 entity, >the other SIP and H.323 entities won't know that it is talking to the >"other side" (you can insert "dark side" or "the enemy" if you are so >inclined). > >As our initial document points out, there is probably a range of >solutions that satisfy this basic criterion, depending on (for example) >to what extent X entities are visible in Y land. > >In my view, publishing any such interoperability document has the >primary benefit of saving implementors of such devices, should they >become popular, a bit of thinking time and maybe avoid some pitfalls. >They are not strictly *necessary* - anybody could derive one of the >modes that we described or something different, as long as it satisfies >the basic "in Rome, do as the Romans" criterion mentioned earlier. > >Thus, given that a standards-track document is not really called for on >the IETF side, this effort could be significantly simpler than, say, the >Megaco/H.248 effort. My rough perception is that the IESG will basically >ask at publication time whether the document suggested as an >Informational RFC violates IETF protocols (SIP and SDP, in this case). >If not, and it does no other harm (e.g., broadcasting a RAS-like query >to all SIP nodes in the Internet or something similarly stupid), the >IETF process should be relatively straightforward, even without a lot of >cooperation machinery, liaison agreements and the like. I realize that >this assessment is probably hopelessly naive, but I am concerned that >the collective effort expended on meta-discussions is rapidly >approaching the effort that seems to be necessary to write an >interoperability document for basic services, including the time to >implement it. > >We'd be happy to provide the infrastructure for meetings, allowing the >ITU participants to use their H.323 phones to call our SIP phones using >our gateway implementation :-) No, we won't charge the ITU for these >translation services :-) > >Regards, > >Henning

2 1

Re: H.323/SIP interworking mailing list
by Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Many thanks for this, I have looked at the mailing list. I agree that this is an excellent "neutral" forum for discussing further any SIP/H.323 interworking problems. Already some people from TIPHON, IETF; SG16 are partcipating. We have to make it sure that also key "interworking" individuals from IMTC and Softwswitch participate. An additional advantage that I see from this would be a common wisdom on what (if anything) should be done by the standards bodies (as standards), such as IETF, ITU and ETSI, the Interop Specs Groups such as IMTC, ETSI (also here) (as Requirements, Interop Specs, Guidelines....) and the Interoperability Test Groups (such as IMTC and Softswitch). Regards, Istvan Sebestyen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; istvan(a)sebestyen.de E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; Siemens Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > ---------- > From: Henning Schulzrinne[SMTP:schulzrinne@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU] > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:28 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: H.323/SIP interworking mailing list > > It has been pointed out that I forgot to give details about the > interworking mailing list. Here they are: > > I've set a mailing list for those interested in the discussion of > SIP/H.323 interworking. Discussion is *not* limited to the draft written > by Kundan Singh and myself. The list is not moderated, but you have to > be a member to post (to minimize spam). Discussions about the merits of > signaling protocols are considered off-topic. An archive of the > discussion is available at the URL below. > > You can subscribe at http://www.egroups.com/group/sip-h323/ by clicking > on "group info" or by sending email to sip-h323-subscribe(a)egroups.com > > -- > Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs >

1 0

[H.323Moblility:] Documents uploaded
by Jaakko Sundquist 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Hi all, I have uploaded the documents: H323AnnexDraft03.zip and H323AnnexHTOR.zip to: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/ . The Annex H draft is the output of Geneva meeting (so it does not yet contain the changes based on Mr. Tran's comments) as is the Terms of Reference (which I hope, we do not have to change anymore). - Jaakko Sundquist ------------------------------------------------------- In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Priorities (RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.)
by Michaely, Boaz 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Radhika and all We have a crying need to move forward with H.323, in order to offer value to our customers (such as your company :-). A lot of expert time is being spent on REAL needs such as H.248, robustness, better signalling support, better service control and mobility. It is a question of priorities that each delegate should make on how they best serve their industry. As has always been the case in SG16, if there is a willingness of people to contribute, then the topic advances, otherwise it stalls. (good example is H.246 Annex D). In my humble opinion, it is unfare to ask people like Paul to spend their time here. Let's wait for the interested parties to come up with proposals. For what it's worth, I second Orit's motion on her #2 option. Again - SG16 should be focusing on added value, rather than on added market confusion. Boaz > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:19 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > Hi, Everyone: > > I understand what Paul has pointed out. We know that a lot > work needs to be > done when it comes to an agreement between the two standard > organizations: > ITU-T SG16 and IETF. We have seen how other works had been > done in the past > cooperatively despite the difficulty. > > However, there is a crying need in the industry for the H.323-SIP > interoperability standard. We are always optimistic that the > good-will will > always prevail for the benefit of the user community of the > whole world as > these standard organizations are committed to provide > interoperability. > > We not talking about the work for the H.323-SIP > interoperability that is > being done in other forums (e.g., IMTC, ETSI/TIPHON, and > others). These > works will go on and they did in the past, and as they will > be doing now. > > We are working for an internationally acceptable standard > where both ITU-T > and IETF will make it a formal standard. Accordingly, we are > working as per > agreement made in the last SG16 (Feb'00) meeting: To bring > contributions in > the SG16 ( - in Q.14/16 and joint discussions will be held > for both Q.13 and > Q.14). > > It can also been seen that a request has also been sent to > the IETF for a > BOF session in the upcoming meeting (March'00). > > Efforts are underway to overcome all difficulties. I > appreciate Paul to > clarify all aspects of difficulties that we might have to > face for working > in this new area and we are also counting on Paul's support > for our effort > as well. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 1:15 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > Folks, > > > > I agree that the goal of a standards body is to create > specifications to > > allow interoperability. However, this is "delicate" > territory. This work > > is not similar to creating a new annex to H.246 wherein the > ITU specifies > > interoperability between various systems or protocols > defined elsewhere in > > the ITU. This work involves describing how to interwork an > ITU system > > with > > an IETF RFC. > > > > It's not an impossible task, but one that may lead to > tremendous debate. > > It > > is quite obvious that some members of the ITU and some > members of the IETF > > have very basic philosophical differences. I can tell you that some > > members > > of the IETF will quickly reject anything the ITU does to standardize > > interoperability. I can also tell you that some of those > members will > > also > > reject anything ETSI does, as well. > > > > This is not to say that I am opposed to such an effort-- if > companies > > support the idea, that is enough of an indication to me > that people feel > > it's necessary and should be done. However, if we head > down that path, I > > really believe that this should be a joint effort between > the ITU and the > > IETF. Why? Because there are strengths and weaknesses with both > > protocols > > and one could easily introduce bias into such a > specification in such a > > way > > as to highlight the strengths of one protocol and the > weaknesses of the > > other. > > > > And, of course, everyone here knows that H.323 is far > superior to SIP, > > right? :-) > > > > Again, I do not disagree with the work. However, as sad > and pathetic as > > this statement may sound, it's true: the IETF members > (especially the > > supporters of SIP) have little respect for the ITU and, > unless we do this > > jointly, our lone efforts are likely to not be well received. I've > > already > > heard enough negative remarks about the efforts the ITU is > undertaking > > (especially in SG13) to describe new Internet protocols; > the claims are > > that > > "that is work the IETF does and the ITU has no business doing it". > > > > It has already been suggested that a third party may be the > better choice > > for such a work. Mr. Taylor mentioned that ETSI may > already be doing > > this. > > Did I understand that correctly? If that's the case, and > if we can get > > the > > IETF to agree to allow them to do such work, we should > probably let them > > do > > the work. > > > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" <rrroy(a)ATT.COM> > > To: <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > Hi, Everyone: > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has > also been the > > case > > > for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting. > > > > > > More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly > indicated that we > > should > > > bring contributions to get the work started. The > interworking between > > H.323 > > > and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed > jointly with > > Q.13 > > > and Q.14). > > > > > > There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP > > > Interworking. A large number of people throughout the > world (starting > > from > > > the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me. > > > > > > The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide > > "INTEROPERABILITY." > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika R. Roy > > > AT&T > > > +1 732 420 1580 > > > rrroy(a)att.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:42 PM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > Dear Rob! > > > > Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully. > > > > The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a > > contribution > > > > for > > > > Osaka meeting. > > > > I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward, > especially if > > many > > > > people see it as valuable. > > > > > > > > BTW: Who said the work shouldn't be done jointly? My > point was that > > it > > > > may > > > > start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU > and IETF". And > > > > after > > > > all we are NOT talking about joined standard > definition. In worst case > > > > about > > > > joined Network definition. :-)) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Orit Levin > > > > RADVision Inc. > > > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > www.radvision.com > > > > orit(a)radvision.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Callaghan, Robert <Robert.Callaghan(a)icn.siemens.com> > > > > To: 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com>; > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> > > > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Orit, > > > > > > > > This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report: > > > > > > > > ======= Start > > > > > > > > 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] > > > > This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: > > > > · Concerns about joint development with IETF > > > > · Which version of SIP would be used? > > > > · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - > need to look > > > > at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and > see how output > > > > compares > > > > with phrasing of work in these questions > > > > · Activities should include comparing call models, > media signaling > > > > · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should > not be done in > > > > SG16 > > > > · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - > this would > > > > split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 > have moved away > > from > > > > joint sessions) > > > > · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use > only the IETF > > > > equivalent of a Recommendation) > > > > · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP > > > > Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions > on how to > > approach > > > > the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in > a controlled > > > > architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a > > framework. > > > > See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report. > > > > > > > > ======= End > > > > > > > > This is the statement in the Q.13 report: > > > > > > > > ======= Start > > > > > > > > D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 > and SIP Networks > > > > > > > > This calls for the creation of an interoperability > question in SG16, > > that > > > > would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > > > > > > With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that > there are several > > > > versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to > interoperate with SIP > > as > > > > SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom > of starting a > > new > > > > question near the end of the study period was also > questioned. It was > > > > also > > > > mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of > > defining > > > > the procedures and architecture that would apply to > this work. One > > > > suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards > > bodies > > > > such > > > > as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of > the work, i.e. > > that > > > > the > > > > target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents > produced by > > > > various > > > > other bodies. There were various expressions of > support that this > > should > > > > be > > > > studied, and contributions related to architectures and > priorities are > > > > solicited. It was agreed that contributions should > address both Q13 > > and > > > > Q14. > > > > > > > > ======= End > > > > > > > > I cannot see in these statements any thing representing > an agreement > > as > > to > > > > the work to be performed. Your attached terms of > reference were not > > > > approved at the working party, which is required, nor > in the Question > > > > meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do > not see how to > > move > > > > the > > > > work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. > Therefore you > > paper > > > > on > > > > terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to > the Osaka > > meeting > > > > for discussion. > > > > > > > > I do know that the proposal for a new question was > rejected at the > > > > question > > > > level, and not brought forward to the working party or > study group > > level. > > > > > > > > Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work > with H.225.0 > > Annex > > > > G > > > > to TRIP. Other items are to follow. > > > > > > > > For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do > not feel that > > the > > > > ITU > > > > should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not > accept any IETF > > person > > > > as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done > jointly. No > > one > > > > wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is > the process to > > be > > > > used? > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Robert Callaghan > > > > Siemens Information and Communication Networks > > > > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > > > > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sebestyen! > > > > There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the > same meaning, > > but > > I > > > > am > > > > sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva > meeting additional > > > > related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I > was referring to > > the > > > > attached paper. (You will find references to relevant > contributions in > > > > this > > > > paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible > > > > directions. > > > > We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an > > understanding > > > > of the work we would like to pursue and prepare > contributions for > > Osaka > > > > meeting. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Orit Levin > > > > RADVision Inc. > > > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > www.radvision.com > > > > orit(a)radvision.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 > <Istvan.Sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de> > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com>; > > 'Orit > > > > Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> > > > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Orit, > > > > >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I > have only found in > > > > TD-74 > > > > >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages: > > > > > > > > > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking > > > > > > > > > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP > > > > interworking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323 > and SIP Networks > > > > > > > > > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability > question in SG16, > > that > > > > >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking. > > > > > > > > > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that > there are several > > > > >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to > interoperate with > > SIP > > as > > > > >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom > of starting a > > new > > > > >question near the end of the study period was also > questioned. It > > was > > > > also > > > > >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done > in terms of > > defining > > > > >the procedures and architecture that would apply to > this work. One > > > > >suggestion is that interoperability should be between > standards > > bodies > > > > such > > > > >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of > the work, i.e. > > that > > > > the > > > > >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type > documents produced by > > > > various > > > > >other bodies. There were various expressions of > support that this > > should > > > > be > > > > >studied, and contributions related to architectures > and priorities > > are > > > > >solicited. It was agreed that contributions should > address both Q13 > > and > > > > >Q14." > > > > > > > > > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the > interim work? > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Istvan > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > > > - > > > > >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen > > > > >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, > > > > >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich > > > > >Tel:+49-89-722-47230 > > > > >Fax:+49-89-722-47713 > > > > >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen(a)icn.siemens.de; > istvan(a)sebestyen.de > > > > >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen(a)yahoo.com; > > > > >Siemens > > Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 > > > > >Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > > > -- > > > > - > > > > >---------------- > > > > > > > > > >> ---------- > > > > >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] > > > > >> Reply To: Orit Levin > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM > > > > >> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason. > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi! > > > > >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" > work in ITU-T > > as > > > > >> described in the initial paper. > > > > >> > > > > >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new > > > > specifications > > > > >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. > This is a time to > > > > >> consider each one of these specifications to be > applied to H.323. > > If > > > > found > > > > >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End > > Services) > > or > > > > >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP > > > > scenarios), > > > > >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. > These two are > > > > >> connected since the first definitely helps the second. > > > > >> > > > > >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work > scope. Based on > > our > > > > >> discussions, it seems like more then one company > would like to see > > this > > > > >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. > (forget the > > name > > > > :-) > > > > >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for > this kind of work, > > the > > > > >> only possible way to do it is to participate in > ITU-T process (with > > all > > > > >> its meaning). > > > > >> > > > > >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process > sorting out topics > > of > > > > our > > > > >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work > being done in > > other > > > > >> organizations. We would like to see experts > (including from TIPHON > > and > > > > >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting > from the mailing > > list) > > > > >> keeping us from repeating their work and being > aligned with them. > > > > >> > > > > >> Best Regards, > > > > >> Orit Levin > > > > >> RADVision Inc. > > > > >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > > > > >> Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > > >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > > > > >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > > > > >> www.radvision.com > > > > >> orit(a)radvision.com > > > > >> > > > >

1 0

In Defense Of Cooperation
by Tom-PT Taylor 29 Feb '00

29 Feb '00

Paul Jones used the term "H.248/Megaco fiasco", and Dale Skran was quite intemperate in his criticism of the joint effort when he spoke in Geneva. I was not in a position to raise much of a defense there, because it would have conflicted with Glen's positioning of the H.248 work as stable. Now that that issue is water under the bridge, I would like to suggest that it really has been quite a successful project. I don't think we should go at it in quite the same way in the future, but we should not come away totally discouraged about the prospects for IETF/ITU-T cooperation. Here are bases for my conclusion: We have been technically successful, and what we have created is better than it would have been if created in either body separately. To be specific, we retained a great deal of the thinking and experience which went into MGCP, but escaped the limitations MGCP's connection model imposed on the use of different bearer types and multiple media. There is a perception that the IETF decision model is lacking because so much had to be done at the ITU-T meetings. However, the grueling effort put in at the latter resulted partly because of fundamental conflict to which Q.13-14 has been unaccustomed (Monterey and much of Red Bank in particular) and partly because there was so much to cover. This may have given the impression that the IETF didn't do anything on their watch, but we did work through a lot of material. Moreover, both Q. 14/16 and Megaco made a host of decisions which have shaped the final protocol. I have pleaded guilty to a failure to complete IETF process in timely fashion. There was a brief window of opportunity in early December when it seemed that the list was quieting down. If I had made Last Call at that point, the long list of issues which was contributed into the Geneva meeting would instead have been forced into the open at an early enough point that IETF process could still have been completed in time for the Geneva meeting. I consider this to be a tactical failure, in that real work was done in the intervening month and a half, and the protocol specification is the better for it. We have come to a point where SG 16 is thoroughly mistrustful of the IETF as a partner, and has shown this distrust by negotiating a contract for further progress on H.248/Megaco down to the last detail. The pity is that I could see that SG 16 was overly anxious to do its part, from Santiago onwards. We were not really ready for determination at that point, and we were not ready for decision coming out of Red Bank. I can understand that SG 16 feels betrayed because the IETF was not finished in time, but the fact is that the job was bigger than the schedule allowed for. This is why, if I am ever involved in a project like this again, I will insist that the IETF and ITU-T working together create an IETF Proposed Standard before determination ever happens. The opportunity for false expectations and artificially tight deadlines will thus never arise, and both sides will be the happier for it. Tom Taylor Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor) Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

2 1

Lessons learned from H.248/Megaco collaboration
by Greg Ratta 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

As we step back from the events of the recent interactions of the ITU and the IETF concerning the "collaboration" on the specification of H.248 / MEGACO, it is clear - at least to me - that there is opportunity for improvement in the manner in which such collaboration is executed. I have purposefully delayed the transmission of this message to allow some reduction of the tension; however, it is important that this issue be addressed before we forget entirely, because I fear that two potential results could be either resistance to any future collaboration or the establishment of a rigid 'one size fits all' process. Either of these results would be detrimental to the operations of both organizations and to the needs of the industry and its consumers. It surprised me that, even at the final hours of determination of the ITU specification, there was no written agreement between the management teams of the respective organizations. In horror, I watched the various collections of individuals spinning towards conclusions without a common understanding of what agreements existed, or what the next step should be in the sister organization (and sometimes in their own organization!), or how to reach the end game. My conclusion is that the single most effective process improvement would be to require that an agreement on the process / project plan be written down and signed-off by the "appropriate management team" of the two organizations at the start of any future collaboration. TSAG and the ISOC VP for Standards should draw up this requirement and indicate what the "appropriate management team" means. Such an agreement would allow the leadership to manage the expectations of their respective organizations and form a structure for the front line - essentially volunteer - group leaders to follow. My comments should not be mis-interpretted as a criticism of any one - or collection - of individuals; we all share some level of culpability for the manner in which past events have played out. My desire is to improve the chance of success in future collaboration. Success for me means not only achieving the most technically correct and optimal specification, but respecting the dignity of all the participants and the processes of the involved organizations. Greg Ratta, Vice Chairman, ITU-T WP 1/11, Broadband Signalling Lucent Technologies Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, gratta(a)lucent.com

1 0

Re: In Defense Of Cooperation
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

Hi, Everyone: Like Mike Buckley, Bob Callaghan has also made excellent points. Both have provided due credits to the people who worked hard to make it happen. In the end, the whole world has been benefited. The final credit belongs to all people of the two great standard organizations: ITU-T and IETF. So far the IP Telephony is concerned, it appears that both ITU-T and IETF have to work cooperatively in many areas for the foreseeable future because they need each other for interworking among their standards. It is a need for the interest of the users of the whole world. Keeping the great spirit, let us see how we can work better in the future. As per suggestion of Bob, we would request Tom to have a post analysis what we need to have for more successes like this overcoming the cultural clashes between the two great organizations for the benefit of the international community. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T (732) 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Callaghan, Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 3:21 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: In Defense Of Cooperation > > Tom, > > I have to agree that the H.248/Megaco project, in the end, is a success. > And much of the success is the process and cultural knowledge that was > gained. Yes, at this point, everyone is suffering some pain. However, > very little greatness is gained without pain. > > The group culture and dynamic is very different between the ITU-T and the > IETF. It is hard for anyone to gain trust in a partner, when you do not > know or understand what the partner is doing. If you don't understand > what a partner is doing, can you trust that you understand what he is > thinking? (YES; but with time and effort!) > > Again, I think that an important success of this work is that it > succeeded. However, we need to understand, as much as possible, as to why > and how it succeeded. This is why I asked you (Tom) to do a post project > debriefing paper. It will help little if this only details corrections to > errors. To be useful, it must detail the successes, including all the > little successes. From this information it will be possible to determine > how to do a cooperation project again. Without this information, most > people will be afraid to try a cooperation project in the fear that it > will just as painful as second time. > > An important part of the success is the core group of people who > participated in all the IETF and the ITU-T activities. I doubt this this > will be typical of any future work. So the question will remain how to > share work between the normal ITU-T process involving contributions at > meetings and the IETF process involving, to a greater extent, work shared > over a mailing list. Both processes are valid, but their dynamics are > very different. (The two groups cannot even agree on a document format > that can be shared between the two groups.) > > There have been many intemperate statements made by too many people > regarding IETF and ITU-T. This is not limited to the H.248/Megaco > project. These statements will not help progress; but in many cases > represent the fears of the individual groups. IETF and ITU-T originated > in very different environments. The future shock is these environments > are becoming one. Neither group has the totality of knowledge. Both > groups have a valid pool of knowledge that adds to the whole and from > which all can learn. But how to bring this sharing about? The > H.248/Megaco project was a start. Let us find away to continue. > > Robert Callaghan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Information and Communication Networks > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 7:43 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: In Defense Of Cooperation > > > > Paul Jones used the term "H.248/Megaco fiasco", and Dale Skran was > quite intemperate in his criticism of the joint effort when he spoke in > Geneva. I was not in a position to raise much of a defense there, because > it would have conflicted with Glen's positioning of the H.248 work as > stable. Now that that issue is water under the bridge, I would like to > suggest that it really has been quite a successful project. I don't think > we should go at it in quite the same way in the future, but we should not > come away totally discouraged about the prospects for IETF/ITU-T > cooperation. > > Here are bases for my conclusion: > > We have been technically successful, and what we have created is > better than it would have been if created in either body separately. To > be specific, we retained a great deal of the thinking and experience which > went into MGCP, but escaped the limitations MGCP's connection model > imposed on the use of different bearer types and multiple media. > > There is a perception that the IETF decision model is lacking > because so much had to be done at the ITU-T meetings. However, the > grueling effort put in at the latter resulted partly because of > fundamental conflict to which Q.13-14 has been unaccustomed (Monterey and > much of Red Bank in particular) and partly because there was so much to > cover. This may have given the impression that the IETF didn't do > anything on their watch, but we did work through a lot of material. > Moreover, both Q. 14/16 and Megaco made a host of decisions which have > shaped the final protocol. > > I have pleaded guilty to a failure to complete IETF process in > timely fashion. There was a brief window of opportunity in early December > when it seemed that the list was quieting down. If I had made Last Call > at that point, the long list of issues which was contributed into the > Geneva meeting would instead have been forced into the open at an early > enough point that IETF process could still have been completed in time for > the Geneva meeting. I consider this to be a tactical failure, in that > real work was done in the intervening month and a half, and the protocol > specification is the better for it. > > We have come to a point where SG 16 is thoroughly mistrustful of the > IETF as a partner, and has shown this distrust by negotiating a contract > for further progress on H.248/Megaco down to the last detail. The pity is > that I could see that SG 16 was overly anxious to do its part, from > Santiago onwards. We were not really ready for determination at that > point, and we were not ready for decision coming out of Red Bank. I can > understand that SG 16 feels betrayed because the IETF was not finished in > time, but the fact is that the job was bigger than the schedule allowed > for. > > This is why, if I am ever involved in a project like this again, I > will insist that the IETF and ITU-T working together create an IETF > Proposed Standard before determination ever happens. The opportunity for > false expectations and artificially tight deadlines will thus never arise, > and both sides will be the happier for it. > > Tom Taylor > Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards > E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor) > Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961 >

1 0

Re: In Defense Of Cooperation
by Callaghan, Robert 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

Tom, I have to agree that the H.248/Megaco project, in the end, is a success. And much of the success is the process and cultural knowledge that was gained. Yes, at this point, everyone is suffering some pain. However, very little greatness is gained without pain. The group culture and dynamic is very different between the ITU-T and the IETF. It is hard for anyone to gain trust in a partner, when you do not know or understand what the partner is doing. If you don't understand what a partner is doing, can you trust that you understand what he is thinking? (YES; but with time and effort!) Again, I think that an important success of this work is that it succeeded. However, we need to understand, as much as possible, as to why and how it succeeded. This is why I asked you (Tom) to do a post project debriefing paper. It will help little if this only details corrections to errors. To be useful, it must detail the successes, including all the little successes. >From this information it will be possible to determine how to do a cooperation project again. Without this information, most people will be afraid to try a cooperation project in the fear that it will just as painful as second time. An important part of the success is the core group of people who participated in all the IETF and the ITU-T activities. I doubt this this will be typical of any future work. So the question will remain how to share work between the normal ITU-T process involving contributions at meetings and the IETF process involving, to a greater extent, work shared over a mailing list. Both processes are valid, but their dynamics are very different. (The two groups cannot even agree on a document format that can be shared between the two groups.) There have been many intemperate statements made by too many people regarding IETF and ITU-T. This is not limited to the H.248/Megaco project. These statements will not help progress; but in many cases represent the fears of the individual groups. IETF and ITU-T originated in very different environments. The future shock is these environments are becoming one. Neither group has the totality of knowledge. Both groups have a valid pool of knowledge that adds to the whole and from which all can learn. But how to bring this sharing about? The H.248/Megaco project was a start. Let us find away to continue. Robert Callaghan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 7:43 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: In Defense Of Cooperation Paul Jones used the term "H.248/Megaco fiasco", and Dale Skran was quite intemperate in his criticism of the joint effort when he spoke in Geneva. I was not in a position to raise much of a defense there, because it would have conflicted with Glen's positioning of the H.248 work as stable. Now that that issue is water under the bridge, I would like to suggest that it really has been quite a successful project. I don't think we should go at it in quite the same way in the future, but we should not come away totally discouraged about the prospects for IETF/ITU-T cooperation. Here are bases for my conclusion: We have been technically successful, and what we have created is better than it would have been if created in either body separately. To be specific, we retained a great deal of the thinking and experience which went into MGCP, but escaped the limitations MGCP's connection model imposed on the use of different bearer types and multiple media. There is a perception that the IETF decision model is lacking because so much had to be done at the ITU-T meetings. However, the grueling effort put in at the latter resulted partly because of fundamental conflict to which Q.13-14 has been unaccustomed (Monterey and much of Red Bank in particular) and partly because there was so much to cover. This may have given the impression that the IETF didn't do anything on their watch, but we did work through a lot of material. Moreover, both Q. 14/16 and Megaco made a host of decisions which have shaped the final protocol. I have pleaded guilty to a failure to complete IETF process in timely fashion. There was a brief window of opportunity in early December when it seemed that the list was quieting down. If I had made Last Call at that point, the long list of issues which was contributed into the Geneva meeting would instead have been forced into the open at an early enough point that IETF process could still have been completed in time for the Geneva meeting. I consider this to be a tactical failure, in that real work was done in the intervening month and a half, and the protocol specification is the better for it. We have come to a point where SG 16 is thoroughly mistrustful of the IETF as a partner, and has shown this distrust by negotiating a contract for further progress on H.248/Megaco down to the last detail. The pity is that I could see that SG 16 was overly anxious to do its part, from Santiago onwards. We were not really ready for determination at that point, and we were not ready for decision coming out of Red Bank. I can understand that SG 16 feels betrayed because the IETF was not finished in time, but the fact is that the job was bigger than the schedule allowed for. This is why, if I am ever involved in a project like this again, I will insist that the IETF and ITU-T working together create an IETF Proposed Standard before determination ever happens. The opportunity for false expectations and artificially tight deadlines will thus never arise, and both sides will be the happier for it. Tom Taylor Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards E-mail: taylor(a)nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor) Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

1 0

Call for Papers - Oct. 2000 IEEE Communications Magazine Feature Topic on Advanced Signaling and Control in Next Generation Networks
by Seshadri Mohan 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

If you have suitable papers, consider submitting for review. Call for Papers attached below. Seshadri Mohan Telcordia Technologies (See attached file: CALLForPapersF.doc)

1 0

H.323/SIP interworking mailing list
by Henning Schulzrinne 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

It has been pointed out that I forgot to give details about the interworking mailing list. Here they are: I've set a mailing list for those interested in the discussion of SIP/H.323 interworking. Discussion is *not* limited to the draft written by Kundan Singh and myself. The list is not moderated, but you have to be a member to post (to minimize spam). Discussions about the merits of signaling protocols are considered off-topic. An archive of the discussion is available at the URL below. You can subscribe at http://www.egroups.com/group/sip-h323/ by clicking on "group info" or by sending email to sip-h323-subscribe(a)egroups.com -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

1 0