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 …
[View More]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
>>
[View Less]
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.…
[View More]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
>
[View Less]
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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
Paul,
March 24 will NOT be good for me since I will be flying to Australia for the
IETF meeting.
My suggestion on conference calls is to pick a day (Monday, Tuesday, etc. )
and time when all conference calls will happen. I think it is hard to get an
aggreement every time on the day/time of the conference time.
vineet
-----Original Message-----
From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [mailto:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 4:16 PM
To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: [H.…
[View More]323Mobility:]
Hi ad hoc Mob. Group
1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL
(ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been
allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility
document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for
MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first
contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to be
defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next number
available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of
numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy,
or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that
would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used.
2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for
Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line document
and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03
(version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into
Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas
Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version 3,
and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the
ToR document. Is that acceptable ?
3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information for
our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are
most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate
date.
Regards
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58
To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
Hi, Paul and Jaakko:
Many thanks for the information.
Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for the
document
number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to diiferentiate
from the
reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering convention
is used, please
try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the
middle, it creates
confusions as it happened last time).
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
>
> Hi Radhika et al,
>
> There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for
mobility. The URL
> is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I
suggest that we
> will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have
some naming
> convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents.
Maybe Paul
> should
> assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the
teleconferences...
>
> - Jaakko Sundquist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC
[mailto:rrroy@att.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34
PM
> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
>
> Hi, Jaakko:
>
> I agree with your reply that was also
reflected in my
> earlier email.
>
> I have a question to you and Paul Guram:
Have you guys
> decided where the
> incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc
group to be sent and
> where the URL
> would be for accessing to that website? If
it is so,
> please
> let all of us
> know soon.
>
> Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the
meeting date and
> time as well?
>
> Best regards,
> Radhika R. Roy
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaakko Sundquist
[SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37
AM
> > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: [H.323Mobility:]
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm sending here the documents related
to H.323 Annex H
> that were
> > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by
the ad hoc
> mobility
> group. Included
> > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of
Reference for it as
> well as the
> > meeting
> > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc
group meetings in
> Geneva.
> >
> > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location
area had been left
> to
> the VLF-section
> > of the draft annex. This is my mistake
and I apologize
> for
> any confusion
> > it
> > has created. I did not, however, take it
off from the
> document I am
> > sending
> > here, this is the document that was
produced as a TD in
> Geneva, but I will
> > remove the location area from the
subsequent versions of
> the draft annex.
> > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my
view it is quite
> unnecessary to
> > argue
> > about these, the TMSI is already
included in the
> proposed
> new alias
> > address
> > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are,
as I understand,
> already needed in
> > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one
scenario of the
> mobility problem. I
> > would
> > see the VLR functionality of the H.246
Annex E IWF as
> really the VLF we
> > have
> > defined as a new mobility functional
entity, thus the
> identifiers TMSI,
> > etc.
> > would be needed in the VLF at least in
some cases.
> However, it might be
> > suitable to indicate that all of the
identifiers
> mentioned
> in the VLF (and
> > other) section(s) are not mandatory.
> >
> > <<GenevaMobility.zip>>
> >
> > - 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.
> >
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<
> File:
> > GenevaMobility.zip >>
[View Less]
The next robustness teleconference will be held on March 1, 2000 at 11AM EST
USA. Please send me e-mail at maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com if you plan to
attend so I can reserve sufficent resources.
The dial in number is:
(613)688-2795
The passcode is: 1235# (you must put in the pound sign)
Agenda:
1) Discussion of the Robutness Framework document outline (attached) and
2) Solicit volunteers to fill in text for the outlined sections
SG-16 Geneva meeting summary on robustness:
The robutness …
[View More]ad hoc working group met several times and covered the
following topics:
1) revisions to the Radvision submission on Robustness Procedure document
Delayed-460. The revised document is WG2/TD 87
http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg16/sg16/td/wp2/2-087.doc.
TD 87 was presented at the meeting and conditionally accepted for inclusion
in H.323v4 and H.225. We are required to supply SDL for the robustness
procedure by the SG-16 May, 2000 Rapporteur's meeting to ensure the
document's ultimate inclusion in the standard.
The robustness submission presented a robustness procedure for:
* Detection of a TCP based connection failure
* Synchronization of the two sides of the connection
concerning the call state
* Definition of recommended behavior in order to renew the
call signaling connection and proceed as normal with the call
* In the case of GK failure, the procedure allows calls to
proceed without any interruption.
2) we worked on a Robustness framework outline (attached). The goal is to
complete the framework document in time to submit it to the SG 16 meeting
May 15-19.
Here is some text from the opening summary:
The H.323 series of Recommendations provides some support for building
robust systems recommendations (e.g. support for specification of alternate
gatekeepers and alternate endpoints). However, by themselves, these are
incomplete. There are a number of unspecified issues such as: How are
alternate endpoints and alternate gatekeepers used to "reconnect" calls that
were in progress when a failure occurred? What signaling procedures are
used to reconnect such calls and which device initiates the procedures? It
is assumed that a well-defined model and explicit signaling procedures are
needed to allow development of complete and interoperable solutions.
However, no detailed procedures are specified in H.323 for dealing with
system failures and re-establishing communication links after such a
failure.
This document proposes a framework towards providing robustness mechanisms
in H.323 followed by the definition of robustness procedures for handling
scenarios that are consistent with the framework.
<<Robustness Framework 01.ZIP>>
-- maureen
Maureen Stillman
Member of Scientific Staff Voice: (607)273-0724 x62
Nokia IP Telephony Fax: (607)275-3610
127 W. State Street Mobile: (607)227-2933
Ithaca, NY 14850
e-mail: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com
www.nokia.com
[View Less]
I have just checked the ASN.1 syntax in version 6 of H.245. Two minor errors
were detected, and should be corrected as below. Mr Bigi has been informed.
I do not intend putting another version onto the PictureTel ftp site just to
correct these errors.
> 1) In ConferenceCapability, change VideoIndicateMixingCapability to
> videoIndicateMixingCapability, that is, change
>
> VideoIndicateMixingCapability BOOLEAN,
>
> to
>
> videoIndicateMixingCapability …
[View More]BOOLEAN,
>
> }
>
> 2) In ConferenceIndication remove the comma at the end of the last line,
> that is, change
>
> videoIndicateCompose VideoIndicateCompose,
>
> to
>
> videoIndicateCompose VideoIndicateCompose
>
>
Best regards
> Mike Nilsson
>
> **********************************************************************
> * Mike Nilsson Tel: +44 1473 645413 *
> * Applications Technology Group Fax: +44 1473 645011 *
> * Internet and Multimedia Applications Email: mike.nilsson(a)bt.com *
> * BT Advanced Communications Technology Centre [B54 Room 94] *
> * Adastral Park *
> * Martlesham Heath *
> * Ipswich IP5 3RE *
> * UK *
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
[View Less]
Please add me to mailing list
Barry A. Farber
___________________
email :bfarber@netspeak.com
NetSpeak Corporation
902 Clint Moore Rd. Suite 104
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Direct:(561) 912-8316, Main: (561) 998-8700, Fax (561) 989-2356
http://www.netspeak.com
The Art of Sound Communication
====================================================================
Privacy and Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this transmission is intended for the
above-named recipient(s) only and …
[View More]contains privileged and confidential
information. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient,
you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, distributing, or taking any
action in reliance on such information. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately.
[View Less]
I second what Bahman said. It should be H.323-SIP or SIP-H.323
Interworking. Cheers.
Regards,
Joon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bahman Mobasser [mailto:bahman@bahman.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:50 PM
> To: Orit Levin; Tom-PT Taylor; martinze(a)cig.mot.com;
> ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet;
> Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika
> R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr;
&…
[View More]gt; jo(a)teles.com; Joerg Ott
> Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
>
> I find the title H.323-Internet a bit disconcerting. Wasn't
> H.323 usable on Internet up to now? The title seems to
> suggest H.323 on Internet is something new!
>
> I know it is just a title, but I prefer simply H.323-SIP.
>
> Bahman
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Bahman Mobasser Tel: +33 1 30771608
> Alcatel Mobile: +33 6 12091822
> 10 rue Latécoère Fax: +33 1 30779914
> 78140 Vélizy Voice & Fax Mail: +33 1 5301 0789
> France Roaming email: Bahman(a)Bahman.org
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> << OLE Object: Ensemble OLE >>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com]
> Sent: jeudi 24 février 2000 01:51
> To: Tom-PT Taylor; martinze(a)cig.mot.com;
> ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois Audet;
> Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika
> R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr;
> jo(a)teles.com; Joerg Ott
> Subject: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion
>
> Hello all!
> I enjoyed to see a positive discussion this morning.
> Therefore I would like to move the topic to the SG-16 mailing list
and
> indicate it by [H.323-Internet] topic.
> François, any ideas for an alternative name? "SIP" is
> limiting, "IETF" is
> political...
>
> Joon, I think that a "scope" chapter is a good idea. I
> completely agree that
> before diving into details of our contributions, we have to
> formulate this
> part. On the other hand, I see it as an output of our initial
> discussion,
> rather then its starting point. If you already have in mind
> some specifics
> on the scope chapter, go ahead and put them on the (mailing)
paper.
>
> In regards to starting a formal joined work with IETF and
> pushing for a
> working group. It is a sensitive issue (Are we in agreement on
that?)
> Everybody (as a company and as an individual) is free to
> join, initiate or
> participate in various standards bodies and pursue their goals.
These
> initiatives can be helpful for our work as well. I wouldn't
> start our ITU
> work from formal definition of relationships with other
> standards bodies. As
> we can see from Henning's mail, the good will from all of us
> is a great
> starting point!
> I am afraid that not all of us will go to Australia. My
> company (as many
> others) will have representatives in SIP, Megaco and other
> relevant working
> groups. Nevertheless lets start the official H.323-Internet
> work at ITU.
> I hope to see more specific topics of interest and "a will"
> to address them
> in contributions for Osaka meeting. I will incorporate
> François' additions.
> Stephen, could you list IETF latest topics, list of services
> and level of
> scenarios that you would like to consider as a part of this work.
> I wouldn't like to address the same things as TIPHON and
> IETF do. They are
> doing very well and we may help them if needed. All of us
> have different
> interests, but my personal opinion is that
> - providing end user with end-to-end basic++ connectivity
> - enhancing H.323 by using IETF technologies (which
> definitely helps the
> first one)
> - finding common areas of interest among the companies
> are the criteria for defining our work items.
> BTW: Conference call is good, but lets do some work at home and on
the
> mailing list before we have an agenda to discuss.
> 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
[View Less]
Hi, Vipin:
I would guess why not if you would desire to do so (unconditional).
For your information: We like create standards. Henning's and/pr other
proposals need to be approved by the standard bodies. We are working to
achieve this goal.
Thanks for the interest.
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
+1 732 420 1580
rrroy(a)att.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VIPIN PALAWAT [SMTP:vipin.palawat@wipro.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:27 PM
> To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; …
[View More]Orit Levin; Tom-PT Taylor;
> martinze(a)cig.mot.com; ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)vtel.com; Francois
> Audet; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; schulzrinne(a)cs.columbia.edu;
> bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr; stephen.terrill(a)ericsson.com; jo(a)teles.com
> Subject: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion
>
> Hi All,
>
> If I am not wrong, Kundan Singh and Henning Schulzrinne has recently(in
> Jan 2000) submitted a draft for H.323-SIP interworking.
> This is already in discussion at sip-h323(a)egroups.com
> <mailto:sip-h323@egroups.com>.
>
> Does it mean that there is going to be another recommendation for the same
> thing?
>
> "any company can be the co-author of this document
> irrespective of the country of origin".
>
> I would like to know the requirements for any company to be a co-author of
> this document.
>
> Best Regards
> Vipin Palawat
> _____________________________________
> Have a nice day !!!
>
> Vipin Palawat
> Wipro Technologies : Telecom Solutions
> Center of Excellence : Voice Over IP
> 91-80-5539134 Extn: 407
> mailto: vipin.palawat(a)wipro.com <mailto:vipin.palawat@wipro.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC < rrroy(a)att.com <mailto:rrroy@att.com>>
> To: Orit Levin < orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com>>; Tom-PT
> Taylor < taylor(a)NORTELNETWORKS.COM <mailto:taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>>; <
> martinze(a)cig.mot.com <mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com>>; <
> ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com <mailto:ranga.dendi@wcom.com>>; < joon_maeng(a)vtel.com
> <mailto:joon_maeng@vtel.com>>; Francois Audet < audet(a)NORTELNETWORKS.COM
> <mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>>; Dave Walker < drwalker(a)ss8networks.com
> <mailto:drwalker@ss8networks.com>>; Paul E. Jones <
> paul.jones(a)TIES.ITU.INT <mailto:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT>>; <
> schulzrinne(a)cs.columbia.edu <mailto:schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>>; <
> bahman.mobasser(a)alcatel.fr <mailto:bahman.mobasser@alcatel.fr>>; <
> stephen.terrill(a)ericsson.com <mailto:stephen.terrill@ericsson.com>>; <
> jo(a)teles.com <mailto:jo@teles.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:30 AM
> Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
>
> > Hi, Orit:
> >
> > You are just right on time. I appreciate this.
> >
> > Please provide me couple of days (may be 2 more days). I would also like
> to
> > include Henning S., Bahman M, Stephen T. and others in this mail.
> >
> > My understanding is that you are willing to work as an editor of this
> work
> > in the SG16.
> >
> > Henning, just to let you know that SG16 has taken this as a work item.
> >
> > Going forward, we would also like to take this issue to the IETF to open
> a
> > work item there as well. Tom indicated that Scott B. likes to see that
> there
> > is enough support for this work item in the IETF before he considers
> whether
> > it is worthwhile to open a new WG or to be a part of another WG. Tom
> might
> > elaborate on this.
> >
> > I plan to attend the next IETF meeting in March'00. If we all plan to go
> > there, we may push for this work in the IETF as well.
> >
> > I would request that all of us provide comments on this. If needed, we
> all
> > may be the co-author of this document to show that we have a wide
> support
> > for this paper.
> >
> > By the way, the next Q.13-14/16 Rapporteur meeting to be held in OSAKA,
> > Japan (May 15-19) and any company can be the co-author of this document
> > irrespective of the country of origin. Even Henning can also join in
> this
> > contribution although Columbia University is not a member of the ITU-T
> > because a Rap. can allow anyone to participate in the meeting.
> >
> > Let us start this with a great cooperative mode.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Radhika R. Roy
> > AT&T
> > +1 732 420 1580
> > rrroy(a)att.com <mailto:rrroy@att.com>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Orit Levin [ SMTP:orit@radvision.com
> <mailto:SMTP:orit@radvision.com>]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 4:17 PM
> > > To: Tom-PT Taylor; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; martinze(a)cig.mot.com
> <mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com>;
> > > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com <mailto:ranga.dendi@wcom.com>;
> joon_maeng(a)vtel.com <mailto:joon_maeng@vtel.com>; Francois Audet; Dave
> Walker;
> > > Paul E. Jones
> > > Subject: H.323-SIP Discusssion
> > >
> > > Hello all!
> > > I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking
> discussion/work
> > > as the first follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into it,
> comment,
> > > provide ideas and additional topics of your interest. Feel free to
> forward
> > > it to whom I forgot... The only reason, I am NOT putting this on the
> SG16
> > > mailing list, I wouldn't like to create waves outside H.323 community
> > > before we have an understanding on the agenda in general. After the
> first
> > > round of remarks, I would like to send it to SG16 mailing list.
> > > 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 <http://www.radvision.com> <
> <http://www.radvision.com>>
> > > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> <
> <mailto:orit@radvision.com>> << File: H323-Internet.zip
> > > >>
[View Less]
Hi, Paul and Jaakko:
Thanks for the update. I would propose that let Paul Guram control the TD
numbers because Paul G. would be the single point of coordination (leaving
no room for confusions either for Annex H, E, or I).
I have a question to Jaakko related to the meeting minutes of Ad Hoc
Mobility group of the last SG16 meeting: Why no mention about AT&T
contributions (D.353 & D.354)? Would you please re-distribute the meeting
minute updating the document stating the status of the …
[View More]AT&T contributions
what exactly happened in the meeting? if you need help in this regard,
please let me know.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
PS: A suggestion to Jaakko: With respect to TMSI, etc., I did not see any
reference to any contributions in you email reply. Any additions/changes to
the ITU document are made based on contributions. Only editorial changes are
made by editors. In fact, TMSI, etc. were added when contributions were made
and these were accepted after discussion. If there are problems, we would
like to see more contributions explaining how these create problems.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [SMTP:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 7:16 PM
> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
>
> Hi ad hoc Mob. Group
>
> 1. We will continue, as previously, and use the URL
> (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ ) which has been
> allocated for our group's use. New contributions to start as (Mobility
> document) MDs to distinguish from the old numerous numbering schemes (for
> MTD,e.g. mtd03, mtd 201, etc.). I suggest we start at md010 as the first
> contribution with md001 to md009 to be used for management activities (to
> be
> defined later). When contributing, look at the ftp site for the next
> number
> available, reserve it by announcing to group, then (if no conflict of
> numbers) load it onto the site. OR we could ask one of Paul (R or G), Roy,
> or for Jaakko to control the allocation of the numbers, if you think that
> would be a better way which avoids clash of same number being used.
> 2. Jaakko has sent us the zipped file with the TD129 from Geneva for
> Annex H. This is the document Jaakko will work on as the base-line
> document
> and Jaakko, could this be put onto the ftp site as Annex H version 03
> (version 01 being Red Bank output, version 2 being ad hoc group input into
> Geneva, and version 3 being Geneva output). Following on from Nicolas
> Tran's comments, there are already (minor) changes to be made to version
> 3,
> and this will be done as part of regular editor update. Similarly for the
> ToR document. Is that acceptable ?
> 3. Apart from Radhika, I have not received availability information
> for
> our next conf. call from anyone else. Please let me know which dates are
> most suitable from 20-24 March to enable me to arrange for an appropriate
> date.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
> Sent: 23 February 2000 15:58
> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
>
> Hi, Paul and Jaakko:
>
> Many thanks for the information.
>
> Paul Guram: Please provide a well thought convention for
> the
> document
> number. For example, MTD.xxx would be given to
> diiferentiate
> from the
> reqular TDs. One request to you: Once a numbering
> convention
> is used, please
> try to stick to that rule (if we change the rule in the
> middle, it creates
> confusions as it happened last time).
>
> Best regards,
> Radhika R. Roy
> AT&T
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:01 AM
> > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
> >
> > Hi Radhika et al,
> >
> > There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for
> mobility. The URL
> > is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ .
> I
> suggest that we
> > will put our contributions there. It would be nice to
> have
> some naming
> > convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the
> documents.
> Maybe Paul
> > should
> > assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the
> teleconferences...
> >
> > - Jaakko Sundquist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC
> [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000
> 3:34
> PM
> > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: Re: [H.323Mobility:]
> >
> > Hi, Jaakko:
> >
> > I agree with your reply that was also
> reflected in my
> > earlier email.
> >
> > I have a question to you and Paul Guram:
> Have you guys
> > decided where the
> > incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc
> group to be sent and
> > where the URL
> > would be for accessing to that website?
> If
> it is so,
> > please
> > let all of us
> > know soon.
> >
> > Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the
> meeting date and
> > time as well?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Radhika R. Roy
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaakko Sundquist
> [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000
> 3:37
> AM
> > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > Subject: [H.323Mobility:]
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm sending here the documents related
> to H.323 Annex H
> > that were
> > > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by
> the ad hoc
> > mobility
> > group. Included
> > > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of
> Reference for it as
> > well as the
> > > meeting
> > > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc
> group meetings in
> > Geneva.
> > >
> > > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location
> area had been left
> > to
> > the VLF-section
> > > of the draft annex. This is my mistake
> and I apologize
> > for
> > any confusion
> > > it
> > > has created. I did not, however, take
> it
> off from the
> > document I am
> > > sending
> > > here, this is the document that was
> produced as a TD in
> > Geneva, but I will
> > > remove the location area from the
> subsequent versions of
> > the draft annex.
> > > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my
> view it is quite
> > unnecessary to
> > > argue
> > > about these, the TMSI is already
> included in the
> > proposed
> > new alias
> > > address
> > > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are,
> as I understand,
> > already needed in
> > > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one
> scenario of the
> > mobility problem. I
> > > would
> > > see the VLR functionality of the H.246
> Annex E IWF as
> > really the VLF we
> > > have
> > > defined as a new mobility functional
> entity, thus the
> > identifiers TMSI,
> > > etc.
> > > would be needed in the VLF at least in
> some cases.
> > However, it might be
> > > suitable to indicate that all of the
> identifiers
> > mentioned
> > in the VLF (and
> > > other) section(s) are not mandatory.
> > >
> > > <<GenevaMobility.zip>>
> > >
> > > - 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.
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > <<
> > File:
> > > GenevaMobility.zip >>
[View Less]
