- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: H246annexC Progress Indicators
by Francois Audet 28 Oct '99

28 Oct '99

Why would we need two Progress indicators? > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves@ERICSSON.COM] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 2:33 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: H246annexC Progress Indicators > > > G'Day, > > In my H246 annex C draft recommendation section C.6.1.4.2 > I've said that > an Alerting and Progress can contain two progress indicator > elements. I > can't find anything in H.225 or H.323 that forbids this. > > ie. > Progress indicator > Progress indicator information elements possibly present in the access > transport parameter of the Call Progress Message (CPG) are transferred > into the message sent to the calling user. If the calling user is a > H.323 end system it need not interpret this information element. > In addition, progress indicator information elements are > created by the > Interworking function according to the coding of the Call Progress > Message (CPG). Table 15 shows the sending criteria of each value. > Every message sent to the access (ALERTING or PROGRESS) may > contain two > progress indicator information elements. When more than two progress > indicator information elements are to be sent, the supplementary > progress indicator information elements are sent in a > PROGRESS message. > > Are people happy to leave this in or do you only want to see one > supported?? > > Cheers, Christian >

1 0

Re: Red Bank Meeting Minutes
by Sakae OKUBO 28 Oct '99

28 Oct '99

Dear Mr. Zacharias, > In which TDs may I find the general minutes and the minutes of Q14 from > Red Bank ITU Meeting? Please find attached my message distributed the other day. It will soon be refine and upload it as APC-1748a. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** 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 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp *********************************************************** Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:55:51 +0900 From: Sakae OKUBO <okubo(a)GITI.OR.JP> Subject: Provisional report of the Red Bank meeting Dear Q12-14/16 experts, Please be advised that a provisional report of the Red Bank meeting is available at the following place: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/APC-1748.zip or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/Incoming/APC-1748.zip This is an integration of TD-53a (general, Q12), TD-54a (Q13) and TD-47c (Q14) with minimum editing. I will later refine it with all Annexes and the list of participants. I hope this will be useful for your debriefing. Please also be advised that all TDs and missing APC documents have been uploaded to /9910_Red directory. Best regards, Sakae OKUBO (Mr.) *********************************************************** 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 Fax: +81 3 5287 7287 e-mail: okubo(a)giti.or.jp ***********************************************************

1 0

H246annexC Progress Indicators
by Christian Groves 28 Oct '99

28 Oct '99

G'Day, In my H246 annex C draft recommendation section C.6.1.4.2 I've said that an Alerting and Progress can contain two progress indicator elements. I can't find anything in H.225 or H.323 that forbids this. ie. Progress indicator Progress indicator information elements possibly present in the access transport parameter of the Call Progress Message (CPG) are transferred into the message sent to the calling user. If the calling user is a H.323 end system it need not interpret this information element. In addition, progress indicator information elements are created by the Interworking function according to the coding of the Call Progress Message (CPG). Table 15 shows the sending criteria of each value. Every message sent to the access (ALERTING or PROGRESS) may contain two progress indicator information elements. When more than two progress indicator information elements are to be sent, the supplementary progress indicator information elements are sent in a PROGRESS message. Are people happy to leave this in or do you only want to see one supported?? Cheers, Christian

1 0

Red Bank Meeting Minutes
by Bilalis Zacharias 28 Oct '99

28 Oct '99

Dear Mr. Okubo, In which TDs may I find the general minutes and the minutes of Q14 from Red Bank ITU Meeting? Thank you Best Regards Zacharias Bilalis SIEMENS ICN WN CS EC D12 > Schertlinstr. 8 > D-81359 Muenchen > Germany > Tel: + 49 89 722 28391 Fax: + 49 89 722 61243 Mail to: zacharias.bilalis(a)icn.siemens.de

1 0

Inclusion of H.323 Annex G in the main document
by Gunnar Hellström 28 Oct '99

28 Oct '99

Paul, I assume that it is the intention to collect all annexes in the main H.323 document. Therefore, please include H.323 Annex G in the main H.323 version 4 document. Annex G, as agreed in Red Bank is found in TD-60, in the form it was entered as a white document to TSB for decision in Geneva. (Annex G, Text Conversation and Text SET, should be possible to implement already in a version 3 compliant environment.) Best regards Gunnar ______________________________________________ Gunnar Hellström LM Ericsson Sweden Tel +46 8 556 002 03 Mob: + 46 708 204 288 Txt and video +46 8 556 002 05 Fax +46 8 556 002 06 e-mail: gunnar.hellstrom(a)omnitor.se

1 0

[Robustness] group formed
by Maureen.Stillman＠NOKIA.COM 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

A new group has formed to study the area of providing robustness mechanisms for H.323. This group has agreed to work on items together. Attached is TD-28 written in Red Bank which outlines terms of reference for work to be undertaken towards providing robustness mechanisms in H.323 and identifies a number of potential future work areas. The group decided to initially work on defining a set of terms for robustness via the mailing list. Please send contributions of relevant terms (and optionally their definitions). Please put [Robustness] in the subject line for those who want to filter e-mail. The group will schedule occasional conference calls open to any interested parties. Nokia will host the first conference call. Conference Call Agenda: A. terms submitted on the mailing list B. next steps for the group I propose Tuesday, November 16 as the first conference call to be held from 11-12 EST. Please send e-mail to me at: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com if you wish to participate or if the time is not good, but you wish to participate. The TD-28 document is attached and the Web site is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/TD-28.zip <<TD-28 robust.doc>> -- 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

1 0

Re: Question on Intels new annex-j h.246 proposal..
by Reddy, Paul K 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

Dear Christian, You are correct, the scope of the H.246 Annex E has not been defined. I will bring in contributions based on Red Bank, NJ, USA, APC-1671,APC-1672 to the H.323 Mobility Ad Hoc group's interim meeting on November 17, 1999 from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time (PST))as one of the agenda item to discuss the scope and need for H.246 Annex E. Thanks, Paul Paul K. Reddy Intel Architecture Labs, Intel Corporations, 2111 NE 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR - 97124, USA. Phone# +1 (503)-264-9896 -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves@ERICSSON.COM] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 6:06 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Question on Intels new annex-j h.246 proposal.. G'Day Paul and Edgar, I believe that according to the meeting notes the scope of the annex has yet to be defined. The meeting report called for contributions on this area. What worried me at the meeting was the overlap with the Mobility groups work in this area. They are defining scope and requirements which may or may not lead to this work needing to be done. Anything on H246annexE should be done in light of this. I don't think we should assume GSM or ANSI-42 at this time. Cheers, Christian "Reddy, Paul K" wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > The new annex is H.246 Annex-E not h.246 Annex-J, which is essentially a > mapping of MAP (mobile application part) of GSM or ANSI-41 or PDC networks > to H.225.0. > > Please refer to Intel's proposals (APC-1671, APC-1672)at ITU-SG16 reflector > (Red Bank Meeting) for more details. > > Edgar Martinez's Question: > Does Intel foresee the same concepts, that is using an adjunct (switched/IP) > Gateway used with the legacy Class-5 switches PSTN? to support H.323 > terminals on Class 5 switches? > > Paul Reddy's Answer: > Intel's focus is on interworking PLMNs with H.323 networks at MAP level. > Other groups already working on the PSTN interworking with H.323 networks, > which may provide the support of H.323 terminals on Class 5 Switches. > > -Paul > > Paul K. Reddy > Intel Architecture Labs, > Intel Corporations, > 2111 NE 25th Avenue, > Hillsboro, OR - 97124, USA. > Phone# +1 (503)-264-9896 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar Martinez [mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 1:35 PM > To: paul.k.reddy(a)intel.com; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Question on Intels new annex-j h.246 proposal.. > Importance: High > > Dear Paul, > > An offical new annex-j for h.246 has been > opened, > proposed by Intel. Which is Interworking > H.323 terminals with the legacy GSM and ANSI > wireless > networks. What this is proposing is a > (MSC+VLR) > Gateway that provides H.323 access to the > Public Land > Mobile Network (PLMN). All the voice and > supplementary services will still be provided > by the Legacy > MSCs. And the data services only by H.323. > APC > 1671 "H.323 with USIM and PLMN Interworking" > and > APC 1672 "User Mobility and Service Mobility > Services for > Wireless Subscribers with H.323 terminals > accessing > MM over IP and PLMN Networks" > > Question: > > Does Intel foresee the same concepts, that is > using an adjunct (swithed/IP) Gateway used > with the legacy Class-5 switches PSTN? to > support > H.323 terminals on Class 5 switches? > > Thanks, > Edgar Martinez

1 0

Re: Mailing list subscription question
by Meyer, Greg W 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

All: I can understand that there are probably several (many?) people that have subscribed to this mail list and have misplaced the instructions and information. Below is a copy of the Welcome message that you received when you subscribed, which has some general information to help you. Please save this message for future reference. Thanks. ------------------------------------- Welcome to the ITU-SG16 mail list. Remember - to POST messages to the list send to: itu-sg16(a)mailbag.intel.com - to interact with listserver.... send to: listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com In addition it is requested, that contact information be provided so that the current list of correspondents on this list be provided to ITU-TSB if so requested. [Full Name] [Organization] [contact number] Please send this information in the body of a message to 'greg.w.meyer(a)intel.com', set the "subject" of the mail to "SG16 Contact". Listed below are some hints on interacting with this mailing list: **************************************************************************** * mail reflector: (sent to listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com) Subscribe: BODY of the text set to subscribe itu-sg16 <your email address> <your name> Unsubscribe: signoff itu-sg16 You can get more information on commands by sending a message with the body of the message containing either 'help' or 'info' to: listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com List Digests: If you feel like you lost some list messages or simply want to get a chronological chunk of them, you can do so. Send a message to "listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com" with the body of the message index itu-sg16 This will get you a list of all the digest files. After choosing which files you want, send another message to "listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com" with the body of the message get itu-sg16 [filename] Finally, you may always contact me (via any of the methods in my signature) with any questions. Greg Meyer ************************************************************************* *** 503.264.9506(voice) 503.264.0170(fax) *** *** greg.w.meyer(a)intel.com Intel - Hillsboro, OR. *** ************************************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: Ken Krechmer [mailto:krechmer@CSRSTDS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 9:54 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Mailing list subscription question Sorry to splatter this to all, but I have a similar problem to Anders, sans coffee. I too need to learn how to access the list server and make such a change. Ken Krechmer At 12:55 PM 10/26/99 +0200, you wrote: >Due to a computer crash (incompatibility of lap-top and coffee) I have lost the e-mail address for the list server and instructions on how to subscribe/unsubscribe. > >As I am changing e-mail address I need to unscribe the old one and subscribe the new address. > >Could someone who has the list server address and instructions please post them to me. > >Thanks in advance > >Anders > >

1 0

Re: Re (2): IN-IPT interworking issue
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

Hi, Everyone: Going forward, I would also request to keep our eyes open how we can integrate this work (H.246 Annex C defines interworking between ISUP and H.323) with that of the H.323 multimedia intelligent network (M-IN) as envisioned in AT&T's contributions: "APC-1664/1665: H.323 User, Service, and Service Provider Mobility Framework for Multimedia Intelligent Network." Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T + 1 732 420 1580 > -----Original Message----- > From: Boaz Michaely [SMTP:Boaz_Michaely@VOCALTEC.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:44 AM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re (2): IN-IPT interworking issue > > Dear Mr. Hwang, > > >(1) What does the interfaces 1, 2, 3 4 mean ? Those are different with > that of > > Q.5/SG11(WP4). > > The diagram shown is only what was proposed to SG11. I chose to leave it > for its overall value, since I have not made a better one yet .. > However, these are NOT the official interfaces. > For the actual interfaces defined, please refer to SG11 baseline doc. > you may find the version which was sent as a liasion to SG11 on my WEB > site: > http://people.itu.int/~michaely/docs/APC-1602.zip > > > >(2) What does the H.246C and D and the arrow to D mean ? (In my > understanding, > >H.246 only related with SSF or CCF..) > H.246 Annex C defines interworking between ISUP and H.323 call signalling > (H.225.0) > H.246 Annex D is the one that should deal with interworking on the service > control level. > The arrow in the diagram depicts that initially, information is only > expected to come from the SCP to the GK. > You may want to take a look at the Annex D terms of reference: > http://people.itu.int/~michaely/docs/TD-46.doc > > >(3) Which question and recommendatio number for standardising about the > H.323 > >service control ? > This is studied as part of Q13/16 and Q14/16. SG16 has recently defined a > new annex for H.323 service control using HTTP (H.323 Annex K). This is > currently the only effort in this area. You can find the draft which was > presented last week in > ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/APC-1696.zip > > > Regards, > Boaz > > > > > << File: ATT79300.txt >> << File: ATT79301.txt >>

1 0

Numbering error in report of the Red Bank meeting
by Boaz Michaely 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

There seems to be some confusion in the APC numbers regarding Annex K (section 5.4.7): 1) H.323 Annex K draft is APC-1696, and not 1695 as noted 2) Erricson codepoints is APC-1697 and not 1696 as noted. In the text it refers to APC-1695 instead of 1696. Regards, Boaz.

1 0