- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [VideoPhone:3843] Re: [QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal
by Yuichiro-Tuck-Takagawa 31 Jan '00

31 Jan '00

I have already asked to stop this to the network manager. At 14:17 00/1/31 +0800, Liping Wang wrote: > somebody please stop it. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gilles Delmas [SMTP:gilles.delmas@PHILIPS.COM] > > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 2:11 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: [QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal > > > > > > Status Distribution January 31, 2000 07:09:04 > > > > Sent by EMAUO01 > > > > The message regarding "[QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal" sent on > > January 31, 2000 07:09:04 was sent by > > > > Status Recipient > > Type To > > Native Name ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Foreign Native Name ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM/n/n/nSMTP > > > > > > > > Recipients > > > > Status Reporters > > Type From > > Name Domain LOTUS > > Native Name CN=Gilles > > Delmas/OU=LIM/OU=RESEARCH/O=PHILIPS@EMEA1 > > Foreign Native Name CN=Gilles > > Delmas/OU=LIM/OU=RESEARCH/O=PHILIPS/nEMEA1/n/n > > Organization PHILIPS > > Org Unit 1 RESEARCH > > Org Unit 2 LIM > > Last Name Delmas > > First Name Gilles > > > > > > > > Status 769 > > Explanation Invalid recipient > > > > X.400 Status 769 > > Explanation Error delivering to SUR003M/M/SERVER/PHILIPS > > mail5/gillesdelmas.nsf; File truncated - file may have been damaged *************************************************************** Yuichiro "Tuck" Takagawa y.takagawa(a)east.ntt.co.jp NTT-East Japan Corporation Voice/Wireless: $B!! (B+81-(0)90-3248-6357 Wired:+81-(0)3-3277-2420 Emergency Internet Pager: 0361241374(a)page.docomonet.or.jp Home Page: http://village.infoweb.or.jp/~fwbc7006/index.htm Post: UOB, 2-2-2 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo100-0004, Japan MAPION URL: http://www.mapion.co.jp/cgi-bin/m?no=2b1448-22nuxd GPS Data: N035 $B!k (B40 $B!l (B58 $B!m!! (BE139 $B!k (B46 $B!l (B16 $B!m (B ***************************************************************

1 0

Re: [QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal
by Liping Wang 31 Jan '00

31 Jan '00

somebody please stop it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gilles Delmas [SMTP:gilles.delmas@PHILIPS.COM] > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 2:11 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: [QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal > > > Status Distribution January 31, 2000 07:09:04 > > Sent by EMAUO01 > > The message regarding "[QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal" sent on > January 31, 2000 07:09:04 was sent by > > Status Recipient > Type To > Native Name ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Foreign Native Name ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM/n/n/nSMTP > > > > Recipients > > Status Reporters > Type From > Name Domain LOTUS > Native Name CN=Gilles > Delmas/OU=LIM/OU=RESEARCH/O=PHILIPS@EMEA1 > Foreign Native Name CN=Gilles > Delmas/OU=LIM/OU=RESEARCH/O=PHILIPS/nEMEA1/n/n > Organization PHILIPS > Org Unit 1 RESEARCH > Org Unit 2 LIM > Last Name Delmas > First Name Gilles > > > > Status 769 > Explanation Invalid recipient > > X.400 Status 769 > Explanation Error delivering to SUR003M/M/SERVER/PHILIPS > mail5/gillesdelmas.nsf; File truncated - file may have been damaged

1 0

[QOS] New reject reasons in QOS proposal
by Rich Bowen 30 Jan '00

30 Jan '00

[Resending with the correct address for itu-sg16.] Mr. Roy, I'm working on the Rapporteur's TD that incorporates your QOS contributions from the Red Bank meeting as previously discussed and I have a question about the reject reasons related to QOS. APC 1668 indicates that "the rejectReason field of the ARJ message should also be extended to include the parameters related to the bandwidth and transportQOS." Currently the AdmissionRejectReason structure has a choice "requestDenied" that indicates, according to the comment in the ASN.1, that the requested bandwidth was not available. Also there is a choice "qosControlNotSupported" that appears to indicate that the GK concluded that either it or the endpoint did not have the QOS capabilities required to make the call. Do these two fields meet the requirements, or did you have something else in mind? Also, APC 1669 indicates that "the rejectReason field of the BRJ message should also be extended to include the parameters related to the transportQOS." The BandRejectReason structure currently defines a choice of "insufficientResources" that I assume is typically used to indicate that the requested bandwidth is unavailable. Were there additional details that you had in mind? Copying the itu-sg16 list since there may be other interested parties. Thanks, Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard K. Bowen Cisco Systems, Inc. rkbowen(a)cisco.com Research Triangle Park, NC --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

MWIF
by Edgar Martinez [1] 30 Jan '00

30 Jan '00

Dear IPer's and Mobiler's, Mobile Wireless Internet Forum http://www.mwif.org/ The Mobile Wireless Internet Forum (MWIF) is an international non-profit industry association. Its mission is to drive an open internet-based architecture that enables seamless integration of mobile telephony and IP-based services (voice, data, video, web, etc.) for the mobile wireless networks and is independent of the air interface. Regards, -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Delayed contributions uploaded
by Gösta Linder (LME) 27 Jan '00

27 Jan '00

Mr. Okubo, Due to some technicalities I am not able to upload document to the FTP Incoming directory. Would it be propriate for you to upload the following LM Ericsson delayed contributions as attached? "Liaison with Tiphon on Mobility Management" <<Tiphon Liaison.zip>> "Refinement of Mobility Management Framework" <<Mob Mgmt Framework.zip>> Thanks in advance / Gösta Linder

2 1

Delayed Contribtions Uploaded to pictel site
by Michael Fortinsky 26 Jan '00

26 Jan '00

The following contributions have been uploaded to the pictel site: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ H225_AnnexG_Proposal_For_New_Version.zip Document Title: Proposal For New Version of the H.225.0 Annex G Standard ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ H225_AnnexG_Service_Relationships_and_Usage_Specs.zip Document Title: H.225.0 Annex G - Specification and Negotiation of Usage Specifications During Service Establishment or Renewal Sincerely, Michael Fortinsky ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Program Manager, IP Telephony Group, VocalTec Communications Ltd. Email: mike(a)vocaltec.com Tel: 972 9 9707768 Fax: 972 9 9561867

1 0

Looking for the source of text in H.323 Implementers Guide
by Paul E. Jones 26 Jan '00

26 Jan '00

Folks, I am trying to find the author of some text that appears in the H.323-Series Implementers Guide approved in May 1999. The text in question is in section 6.3.4. The description of the problem in the IG is: ----- The Fast Connect procedure allows endpoints to determine certain capabilities of peer endpoints in the absence of the full disclosure provided by the H.245 capabilities exchange procedure. This should be reflected in H.245 section 7.2.1, (terminal capability messages) Overview and section 7.3.1, Open Logical Channel under the description of the dataType parameter, where the following text should be added. ----- The specific text that has been added is: ----- If an endpoint has not indicated non-null receive capabilities through a Terminal Capability Set message, capabilities not previously indicated by the endpoint may be contained in the dataType parameter. In this case, the receiving entity shall consider that the sending endpoint has the specified capabilities, and furthermore, simultaneous capabilities may be indicated by the dataType of any logical channels associated with this request through the use of the associatedSessionID parameter. ----- and ----- If an endpoint has not indicated non-null receive capabilities through a Terminal Capability Set message, capabilities not previously indicated by the endpoint may be contained in the dataType parameter of an Open Logical Channel message. In this case, the receiving entity shall consider that the sending endpoint has the specified capabilities, and furthermore, simultaneous capabilities may be indicated by the dataType of any logical channels associated with the Open Logical Channel request through the use of the associatedSessionID parameter. ----- If you are the author of this text, or if you can tell me the source of this text, please contact me. As far as I can tell, this text first appeared in TD-14 of the Monterey meeting in February 1999. Best Regards, Paul

1 0

Delayed Contributions are uploaded
by Orit Levin 26 Jan '00

26 Jan '00

Hello! The following Delayed Contributions are uploaded to the Incoming Directory: - "Robustness Procedure" in RV-Robustness.zip - "Improved H.245 Procedures" in RV-H245Procedures.zip 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

Re: Delayed contributions uploaded
by Reddy, Paul K 26 Jan '00

26 Jan '00

Mr. Okubo and colleagues, Per your request, I have just uploaded my delayed H.323 SG16 contributions to the AVC site. (ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming). The filenames are: 1. H_246_AnnexE_Geneva_02072000.doc 2. H323_MobilityDefn_Geneva_0207200.doc also I upload the above files as Zipped files: 1. H-246-Annex-E.zip 2. H323_MobilityDefn_Intel.zip Please review the enclosed documents and provide you comments to me. thanks a lot. regards, Paul Paul K. Reddy Intel Corporation Mailto:paul.k.reddy@intel.com Office Phone: +1.503.264.9896 Mobile Phone:+1.503.807.9564

1 0

Delayed contributions for H.323 Annex K
by Espen Skjæran (ETO) 26 Jan '00

26 Jan '00

Colleagues, I have uploaded two Ericsson contributions relating to H.323 Annex K to the pictel site: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/ Draft_H323_annexK.zip The draft of H.323 Annex K proposed for determination H323_annexK_h2250changes.zip Modifications to H.225.0v4 to support it. There is not a lot of changes since Red Bank; - Added support for multiple service control sessions initiated on same signalling channel - Removed use of IRQ for ras signalling and instead added two new RAS messages, ServiceControlIndication and ServiceControlResponse Regards, Espen

1 0