- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Full Network Harmonization
by Edgar Martinez [1] 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

Dear All I have updated TD-09 network picture on figure 3 to include some of the ideas that Tiphon and other groups are working on. 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

Re: is cross-posting really necessary?
by Edgar Martinez [1] 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

Dear Nancy, I too support Christian, the MEGACO list is a heavy hitter when it comes to an overload of messages in a mail box. Plus not all issues are common, and one needs only a shap shot to get the idea where it is going. The issues with Sigtan would have been better understood if we had the same service. Thank you, Ed "Callaghan, Robert" wrote: > Nancy, > > I thank Christian for advising the SG16 mailing list as to the MEGACO > activities. I don't monitor the MEGACO list because I simply do not have > time for all the detailed work. However, I do believe that SG16 people > should be kept informed as to the general activities that are performed in > the name of SG16. > > Abrogating the coding agreement from Berlin because it is inconvenient > should not be keep hidden from the SG16 group. The AD/Chair may determine > consensus for IETF, but not for ITU. In ITU, consensus is determined by the > Rapporteur, and that is not Tom Taylor. > > The agreed proposal for dual coding standards was an attempt to finesse the > unresovable disagreement over the coding standards. Abrogating this > agreement may only extend the discussion. This can only impede a JOINT > standard. > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Callaghan > Siemens Business Communication Systems > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 > Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy-M Greene [mailto:ngreene@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:03 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: is cross-posting really necessary? > > Christian Groves writes: > > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > > > Christian > > > Christian, > I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation > remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive > two of everything. > > If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can > either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list > archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. > > The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com > > To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to > listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with > > subscribe megaco > > in the msg body (no subject needed). > > Nancy > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com -- 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/

2 1

Re: is cross-posting really necessary?
by Callaghan, Robert 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Nancy, I thank Christian for advising the SG16 mailing list as to the MEGACO activities. I don't monitor the MEGACO list because I simply do not have time for all the detailed work. However, I do believe that SG16 people should be kept informed as to the general activities that are performed in the name of SG16. Abrogating the coding agreement from Berlin because it is inconvenient should not be keep hidden from the SG16 group. The AD/Chair may determine consensus for IETF, but not for ITU. In ITU, consensus is determined by the Rapporteur, and that is not Tom Taylor. The agreed proposal for dual coding standards was an attempt to finesse the unresovable disagreement over the coding standards. Abrogating this agreement may only extend the discussion. This can only impede a JOINT standard. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Business Communication Systems Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Nancy-M Greene [mailto:ngreene@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:03 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: is cross-posting really necessary? Christian Groves writes: > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > Christian > Christian, I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive two of everything. If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with subscribe megaco in the msg body (no subject needed). Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com

1 0

is cross-posting really necessary?
by Nancy-M Greene 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Christian Groves writes: > As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross > post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. > ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > > Christian > Christian, I don't know if others agree, but I would suggest that the conversation remain on just ONE mailing list so that people on both lists do not receive two of everything. If there is interest from SG16 members to follow this discussion, you can either join the Megaco mailing list, or consult the Megaco mailing list archives. Then cross-posting is not needed. The Megaco list archives are at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com To join the Megaco mailing list, send an email to listserv(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com with subscribe megaco in the msg body (no subject needed). Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy M. Greene Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg)]
by Christian Groves 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

FYI for SG16, a part of a thread on the outcome of Berlin. As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com Christian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:47:52 +0200 From: Chip Sharp <chsharp(a)CISCO.COM> Reply-To: Chip Sharp <chsharp(a)CISCO.COM> To: MEGACO(a)STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM References: <4.1.19990809163617.03ef1760(a)dogwood.cisco.com><F033F6FEF3F1D111BD150000F8CD1431025B5F9E(a)zcard007.ca.norte l.com> At 05:09 PM 8/9/99 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote: >At 05:56 PM 8/9/99 +0200, Chip Sharp wrote: >>At 10:20 PM 8/8/99 -0400, Nancy-M Greene wrote: >> >> >It is expected that industry forums would define profile for use of H.248 >> >and this would include whether text vs binary is used, as well as which >> >packages would be used, etc. In Section 6.3.4, sentences added: "MGCs should >> >support both encoding formats. MGs may support both formats." >> > >>...snip... >> >>I propose that megaco should continue with its Oslo agreement and >>concentrate on the text encoding. Therefore, the IETF document would >>contain the text version of the protocol but not the binary version. Since >>the parameter encoding is so tightly bound with the encoding, the IETF >>version would specify the SDP encoding of parameters but not the other >>proposal. > >As has been noted here several times, MEGACO did not in any way agree to >use text. A coin was flipped at an ad hoc meeting and the issue was not >discussed during the main meeting. As Tom has pointed out, it is up to the megaco WG chair to declare consensus. I should say "Oslo proposal". I can say for sure that megaco has not agreed to do both a binary and text encoding. I am making a proposal. I would actually like to hear more people venture their opinion about this other than the 5 to 10 people that seem to create most of the mail on this list. >One thing we agreed on at least from the AD/Chair level was that MEGACO >would pen the requirements in cooperation with SG16 and SG16 would pen the >protocol in cooperation with MEGACO. I see no reason we can't continue with >that method. I believe what Scott sent to the list was: "The gist of the proposal is that the two groups would agree to some form of double veto process where by both groups have to agree to the final wording for the protocol before either group would publish it." I haven't heard anything further. This may seem rather abrupt after the SG16 meeting, but it has to be addressed as to whether or not megaco will agree to both a binary and text encoding. I'd rather have the discussion sooner than later. So the question is, does megaco agree with the SG16 proposal to have both a binary and text encoding of the protocol as described in the draft Nancy mentioned? Chip -------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp Consulting Engineering Cisco Systems Telco Bio-region Reality - Love it or Leave it. --------------------------------------------------

1 0

RAS to INAP
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear All, Attached is part of a document I presented in TIPHON 13 and the Santiago ITU-SG16 meeting to support INAP interworking in H.323. Which help to start the groups (TIPHON and SG16), to look at INAP-IPT interworking. The reason I sending this out I promise some reps. from TSG11 to send the Mapping of the RAS to INAP messages as a start. 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

Short Report on SG11 & SG16
by Edgar Martinez [1] 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear Tiphoners ITU-SG11 and IMT-2000 ----------------------------------- ITU-SG11 issued a liaison statement which I hand carried to SG-16. I have attached the liaison statementit to this email. The sum of the statement is that SG11 will support and work together with SG16 to support the INAP interworking in the IP network. I had the luck in meeting some Representatives from IMT-2000 and (informal), presented my proposal on support for H.323 mobility and GSM interworking which was well received. ITU-SG16 last stop in standards tour. ---------------------------------------------------- First of all, provide H.323 mobility recommentions, then non-h323 wireless IWF, e.g., GSM Terminal and MAP interworking in the IP network, the proposals where accepted in the TOR. Attached is are the TORs for H.323 mobile and IN on IPT. Best 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

Re: overlapped Sending in h.323
by Sudharsana Krishnan 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Christian The Gatekeeper in my opinion cannot resolve absence of destination alias to any valid address. You will always receive a ARJ. The first ARQ you sent should have had the incomplete dest alias and not NULL. You follow the ARJ with additional ARQs as and when you keep getting additional information about the destination and when finally the gatekeeper can translate this address, it will send you a ACF with either its own Call sigannling address (Gk routed) or any other. For eg. Lets assume Ep1 is a terminal connected to a LAN and supports H.323 with overlapped sending. The User wants to dial 91-80-5598615. As and when the user dials each digit (or a set of digits) it sends out a ARQs to its Gatekeeper with destination alias set to say 9 (first ARQ) , 91 (second ARQ) , and so on. Lets assume that the Ep1's gatekeeper has an entry that maps 91-80 (prefix) to a Gateway's call signalling address, the Gatekeeper sends an ACF for the ARQ that contains "91-80" as the destination alias. The ACf can contain the Gatekeeper's Call Signalling address (if the Gatekeeper routes the call) or the Gateway's Call signalling address, and then the Setup, setup acknowlegde, information message sequence takes over. Hence the setup goes only after the ACF is received and only one ACF is received by Ep1 and not two as you have indicated Hope this helps Regards Sudharshan -----Original Message----- From: Christian Geng <christian.geng(a)detewe.de> To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com> Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 1:29 PM Subject: overlapped Sending in h.323 >Dear Sir or Madam, > >I try to be H.323 conform in the folowing: >I want to support overlap sending within gatekeeper-routed calls. >My session starts with a ARQ from enpoint_1 to GK without any >destination alias. After receaving ACF endpoint_1 sends SETUP without >any destination alias, but with canQverlapSend is TRUE. GK will answer >with a SETUP ACKNOWLEDGE. Endpoint_1 will then send digit by digit of >alias in destinationInfo field of ARQs. By each sending the total >cumulative addressing information is transmitted in destinationInfo >field. GK responds each time with an ARJ until recept full destination >alias, in this case it answers with ACF. I hope I am right until now? >Reading clause 8.1.12 of ITUs H.323 I thought endpoint_1 shall then send >a SETUP message to GK? This will be the second SETUP, because enpoint_1 >allready did. Can't GK send now a SETUP to endpoint_2 with the >ip-address belonging to the destination alias put in the >destCallSignalAddress field? > >I thank you much for an answer to solv my problem. > >Cincerely > >Christian Geng >

1 0

overlapped Sending in h.323
by Christian Geng 10 Aug '99

10 Aug '99

Dear Sir or Madam, I try to be H.323 conform in the folowing: I want to support overlap sending within gatekeeper-routed calls. My session starts with a ARQ from enpoint_1 to GK without any destination alias. After receaving ACF endpoint_1 sends SETUP without any destination alias, but with canQverlapSend is TRUE. GK will answer with a SETUP ACKNOWLEDGE. Endpoint_1 will then send digit by digit of alias in destinationInfo field of ARQs. By each sending the total cumulative addressing information is transmitted in destinationInfo field. GK responds each time with an ARJ until recept full destination alias, in this case it answers with ACF. I hope I am right until now? Reading clause 8.1.12 of ITUs H.323 I thought endpoint_1 shall then send a SETUP message to GK? This will be the second SETUP, because enpoint_1 allready did. Can't GK send now a SETUP to endpoint_2 with the ip-address belonging to the destination alias put in the destCallSignalAddress field? I thank you much for an answer to solv my problem. Cincerely Christian Geng

1 0

Berlin TDs
by Noriko Hosokawa 09 Aug '99

09 Aug '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, Berlin TDs have been uploaded to the /9908_Ber directory. Please note that TD-11 and TD-45 are vacant. 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