- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Gösta Linder (LME) 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

Paul, 22 and 23 are fine with me/Gösta -----Original Message----- From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [mailto:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM] Sent: den 24 februari 2000 01:16 To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.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 >>

1 0

Re: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Orit Levin 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

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

2 1

RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [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; > ranga.dendi(a)wcom.com; joon_maeng(a)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> > orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> << File: H323-Internet.zip > >>

3 2

Re: [H.323Mobility:]
by Guram Paul-LPG019 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

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 >>

2 1

Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729
by Frank Derks 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Tom, section 3 of RFC1890 indeed specifies how additional payload types have to be registered with the IANA. Table 2 in section 7 specifies the assigned (and unassigned) payload types at the time of publication of the RFC (presumably). This table is no longer in line with the table that can be found at the IANA Web site (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/rtp-parameters) however. Since G.729 is not present in either of these tables, it would seem that somebody will need to undertake the action to do so. Especially because H.225.0 _does_ specify a payload type for G.729 and I think it is desirable that the code that is being used is not assigned (inadvertently) to some other codec. Whose responsibility would it be to do so? ITU-SG16? ----------------------------------------------------- Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | |1200 JD Hilversum | |The Netherlands | ----------------------------------------------------| E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | ----------------------------------------------------- taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM@SMTP@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM on 23/02/2000 17:24:37 Please respond to ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP Sent by: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP cc: Subject: Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 Classification: Restricted As I understand it (and I'd better be right, because I have to do similar things for H.248!) the stuff initially defined in the RFC that sets up the registration process (RFC 1890) does not go into the IANA database -- only subsequent registrations. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Derks [SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:30 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > > H.225.0 specifies that the payload types for G.723.1 and G.729 are 4 and > 18 respectively. > When I take a look at the registered payload types at the IANA, these two > codecs are > not listed. > > Does this mean that the IANA list is not up-to-date or that these codecs > are not officially > registered. > > Frank > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | > Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | > Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | > |1200 JD Hilversum | > |The Netherlands | > ----------------------------------------------------| > E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | > WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | > -----------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729
by Hutton, Charles 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

I have the same concerns for G.729E. Charles (Chuck) Hutton Strategic Architecture Engineering Wireless Local Technology Group AT&T Wireless Services PO Box 97059 Redmond, WA 98073 (USPS only) 9461 Willows Road Redmond, WA 98052 (FEDEX/UPS) 425-702-2938 Voice 425-702-2518 FAX charles.hutton(a)attws.com > ---------- > From: Frank Derks[SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] > Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:46 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > > <<File: FILE0001>> > Tom, > > section 3 of RFC1890 indeed specifies how additional payload types have to > be registered with the IANA. > Table 2 in section 7 specifies the assigned (and unassigned) payload types > at the time of publication of the > RFC (presumably). This table is no longer in line with the table that can > be found at the IANA Web site > (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/rtp-parameters) however. > > Since G.729 is not present in either of these tables, it would seem that > somebody will need to undertake > the action to do so. Especially because H.225.0 _does_ specify a payload > type for G.729 and I think it is > desirable that the code that is being used is not assigned (inadvertently) > to some other codec. > > Whose responsibility would it be to do so? ITU-SG16? > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | > Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | > Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | > |1200 JD Hilversum | > |The Netherlands | > ----------------------------------------------------| > E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | > WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > taylor@NORTELNETWORKS.COM@SMTP@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM on 23/02/2000 17:24:37 > Please respond to ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP > Sent by: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM@SMTP > cc: > Subject: Re: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > Classification: Restricted > As I understand it (and I'd better be right, because I have to do similar > things for H.248!) the stuff initially defined in the RFC that sets up the > registration process (RFC 1890) does not go into the IANA database -- only > subsequent registrations. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Derks [SMTP:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:30 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729 > > > > H.225.0 specifies that the payload types for G.723.1 and G.729 are 4 and > > 18 respectively. > > When I take a look at the registered payload types at the IANA, these > two > > codecs are > > not listed. > > > > Does this mean that the IANA list is not up-to-date or that these codecs > > are not officially > > registered. > > > > Frank > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Frank Derks |Tel +31 35 6893238 | > > Advanced Development |Fax +31 35 6891030 | > > Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32 | > > |1200 JD Hilversum | > > |The Netherlands | > > ----------------------------------------------------| > > E-mail: mailto:frank.derks@philips.com | > > WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com | > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > >

1 0

H.248 most recent document
by Bilalis Zacharias 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Good morning Glenn. Could you please tell me where can I find the H.248 with the changes of the Geneva meeting? Thanks in advance Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüssen Zacharias Bilalis SIEMENS ICN WN CS EK B13 > Schertlinstr. 8 > D-81359 Muenchen > Germany > Tel: + 49 89 722 28391 Fax: + 49 89 722 61243 Mail to: zacharias.bilalis(a)icn.siemens.de

3 2

Re: Please upload the decided/determined/approved texts
by Callaghan, Robert 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Sakae, I have uploaded the decided text for H.450.8 as: H.450.8clean.doc H.450.8red.doc 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: Sakae OKUBO [mailto:sakae.okubo@TIES.ITU.INT] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 12:34 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Please upload the decided/determined/approved texts Dear Editors, Could you please upload your documents of decision, determination or approval at the /Incoming of the PictureTel ftp site? Please make an announce through the reflector when you have uploaded your documents. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO *********************************************************** Waseda Research Center Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan (TAO) 5th Floor, Nishi-Waseda Bldg. 1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan Tel: +81 3 5286 3830 (to be transferred) +81 3 3204 8194 (direct) Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0

Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The work has been started
by Orit Levin 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

For those who are experiencing problems. 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: Roni Even <Roni_e(a)accord.co.il> To: 'Orit Levin' <orit(a)radvision.com> Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The work has been started >Hi Orit, >I have a problem opening the zip file >Regards >Roni > >********************************************** >Roni Even >VP Product Marketing >Accord Networks >Email: roni_e(a)accord.co.il >Tel: +972-3-9251412 >Fax: +972-3-9211571 >*************************************************** > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@RADVISION.COM] >> Sent: Wed, February 23, 2000 7:03 PM >> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The work has been started >> >> Hello all! >> I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work >> as the follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into the attachments >> and join the discussion. >> 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 <http://www.radvision.com> >> orit(a)radvision.com <mailto:orit@radvision.com> << Message: RE: H.323-SIP >> Discussion >> << Message: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion >> << Message: RE: >> H.323-SIP Discusssion >> << Message: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion >> << >> Message: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion >> << File: H323-Internet.zip >> >

1 0

[H.323-SIP/Internet] The work has been started
by Orit Levin 23 Feb '00

23 Feb '00

Hello all! I put together the ideas for H.323-Internet Interworking discussion/work as the follow up from Geneva meeting. Please, look into the attachments and join the discussion. 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