- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Bandwidth Control/Bandwidth Management
by VIPIN PALAWAT 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

Hi All, Can anyone tell me the idea behind keeping Bandwidth Control(mandatory for GK) and Bandwidth Management(optional for GK)as two different entities in H.323 standards. Regards Vipin --------------------------------------------------- Have a Nice Day!!! mailto:vipinpal@wipsys.soft.net

2 1

Reminder: Megaco/H.gcp conference call
by Nancy-M Greene 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

> ---------- > From: Greene, Nancy-M [CAR:5N10:EXCH] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 2:10 PM > To: megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com > Subject: Megaco/H.gcp conference call > > In order to continue the cooperation between SG16 and the IETF, Brian Hill > and I would like to schedule another Megaco/H.gcp conference call so that > we > have rough consensus on what Brian Rosen will put into megaco-protocol-02 > (Internet-Draft cutoff date for IETF Oslo meeting is June 25/99). > > In Megaco we have agreed to produce a completed audio-only version of the > megaco protocol for June 25th, but that this version would take into > consideration the proposals for multimedia in SG16's H.gcpSantiago so that > they can easily be added in a future version. We need to have an > "implementable" version of the Megaco protocol by the July Oslo meeting, > or > we will have missed the boat. > > It is expected that the megaco-protocol-02 would be an implementable audio > version of the Megaco/H.gcp protocol, and that SG16 would be able to add > to > the protocol syntax, in a backwards compatible way, all that is necessary > for multimedia. > > Proposed discussion topics: > > 1) Termination naming - hierarchical or logical, or a combination with > TerminationId + Bearer? > > 2) handling multplexing terminations - as in H.gcp? or as a new context > type? > > 3) allowing one BearerDescriptor, and multiple MediaDescriptors per > termination - acceptable? > > 4) decision on transport > > 5) proposal for tagging the MediaDescriptor with its encoding: SDP or > H.GCP > > 6) proposal for text vs binary encoding of the protocol > (draft-huitema-megaco-sdp-discuss-01.txt) > > 7) multimedia vs monomedia contexts (related to #3) > > > Call Details > Date: Wednesday, June 16th > Time: 11amET for 2 hours > Phone: 613-763-6338 > PassCode: 131313# > > Problems getting on the bridge? call 613-765-CONF, and ask for the > conference chaired by Nancy Greene. > > As before, minutes of the meeting will be posted ASAP after the call. > > > Nancy Greene Bryan Hill > ngreene(a)nortelnetworks.com bhill(a)videoserver.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com >

1 0

FW: Transport - FW: new I-D: draft-cuervo-megaco-tudp-00.txt
by Nancy-M Greene 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

> Until it appears on the IETF web site, the following Internet-Draft is > available at ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/Oslo99/ - in > there, you will find the file > draft-cuervo-megaco-tudp-00.txt. > > This I-D is a proposal that addresses the transport issue for > Megaco/H.gcp. Any comments on the draft are welcome. ***Please post > comments on megaco(a)standards.nortelnetworks.com.**** > thanks, > Nancy > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com > > ---------- > From: Greene, Nancy-M [CAR:5N10:EXCH] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 9:26 PM > To: 'internet-drafts(a)ietf.org' > Cc: Cuervo, Fernando [CAR:5N10-I:EXCH]; Rayhan, Abdallah > [CAR:5N00:EXCH]; 'smayer(a)dynamicsoft.com' > Subject: new I-D: draft-cuervo-megaco-tudp-00.txt > > Please find attached a new internet-draft for you to post. This draft is > relevant to the Megaco WG. > > Title : Transaction UDP plus Timers (TUDP) for > MEGACO > Author(s) : F. Cuervo, A. Rayhan, J. S. Mayer > Filename : draft-cuervo-megaco-tudp-00.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 15-Jun-99 > > This document describes transaction-oriented reliable UDP with timers > (TUDP). It can be used to provide reliable delivery of transactions for > MEGACO [1] applications. The objective of the protocol is to deliver > transactions and messages within the time constraints of the application, > i.e., the application timer. Transaction sequences are ordered perstream, > and superseding of transactions is allowed. > > MEGACO implementations may choose to use TUDP for applications that > require high fan-out, reliable and ordered delivery. Other transports such > as TCP, UDP or SIGTRAN may be useful in other situations. > > > Nancy > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nancy M. Greene > Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks > T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:ngreene@nortelnetworks.com > >

1 0

H.Multilin
by Mickey Nasiri (ETX) 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

Dear colleagues, Could any of you help me with following question. In H.324 D.4.6.1 "Exceptional bypass of V.140" it is explained how to bypass (or when it is possible to bypass) V.140. I wonder if it is possible to use H.multilink (H.226) if V.140 is bypassed? In other words: Is it possible to start H.multilink later than from the beginning. (start without H.226 and connect it later). Best regards //Mickey -- //Mickey Nasiri Ericsson Telecom AB Home Communications SE-126 25 STOCKHOLM Tel: +46-8-719 38 61 Mob: +46-70-319 38 61 email: mickey.nasiri(a)ericsson.com

1 0

Re: Questions on H.GCP applied on text telephony
by Gunnar Hellstrom 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

John, I like your idea of a script driven termination, and that without the script, the MGC gets all events and has to take all decisions. Could be the appropriate model rather than the "user driven multiplexor" I described. Do you then see the context on the IP side containing both streams for text and voice and that the modem side gets orders of what stream to feed at each moment. (Rather than changing the context back and forth to contain only the currently active IP-termination.) Regards Gunnar At 05:47 PM 1999-06-10 +0200, John Segers wrote: >Gunnar, > >It took me a while to realize that you were addressing me with your >question since the thread moved over from MEGACO to SG 16 list, but I >clued in. > >My idea about transitioning between text and audio was slightly >different. I expected it would be driven by modem events. The modem >detects a carrier, and in the absence of any scripts, notifies the >controller. This then sends a command telling the Termination to change >its media to text. A script in the MG could also specify this behavior, >allowing us to get rid of the signaling to the MGC. > >In the H.GCP document, I think there would have to be a description of >the text medium as a subtype of data. And in the section explaining the >modem parameters, there has to be a reference to V.18. > >Does this sound reasonable? > >Thank you for your input, > >John Segers > >Gunnar Hellstrom wrote: >> >> The structure you described for bearers, terminations, multiplexors, >> contexts etc. described seems reasonable. >> For a PSTN termination in text telephone mode of the highest level, where >> the PSTN way of alternating between voice and text is supported, I see it >> best described as a kind of user-driven multiplexor. >> >> When there is a carrier from the text phone, the multiplexor conveys the >> text stream. >> >> When the carrier ceases, the multiplexor conveys the audio stream. >> >> Text arriving from an IP termination may cause the state of the PSTN >> multiplexor to change from audio to text and then transmit the text in the >> prevailing text telephone mode. >> >> Audio coming from an IP termination while the multiplexor is in the text >> mode can not go through. The multiplexor stays in the text mode until the >> user makes the alteration. ( usually by lifting the handset and "stealing" >> the line from the textphone.) >> >> On the IP side, H.323 Annex G is supposed to support simultaneous audio and >> text. There is no need for this kind of user driven multiplexor there. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> I understand that the requirements behind this description should go into >> section 11.2.4 of megaco requirements (D-286 of Santiago). But where in >> H.gcp do you want the description of parameters and functions needed in the >> gateway components for this functionality? >> >> Gunnar Hellström >> >> At 10:09 AM 1999-06-10 +0200, John Segers wrote: >> >Hao, >> > >> >In the current MEGACO model as described in draft-01, a Termination >> >describes the media and in-band signaling for one user, and how they are >> >transported etc. A Context associates all Terminations in a session and >> >implies audio mixing if there are more than two. >> > >> >This idea is retained in the Santiago work. Going to multiple media, a >> >Termination still describes the media and in-band signaling for one >> >user. A Context still associates all Terminations in a session. For >> >multimedia sessions, the mixing/switching can no longer be implied, but >> >will be described by means of Context properties. If there is only >> >audio, nothing changes in the Context. >> > >> >In order to allow H.320 and H.324 where multiple media are multiplexed >> >on one or more bearers, there needs to be a distinction between >> >TerminationID and BearerID in order to retain the concept that a >> >Termination describes the media, in-band signaling and transport. >> > >> >You see, the goal was to stay close to the basic monomedia connection >> >model for multimedia, always keeping in mind that there should be as >> >little overhead as possible for controlling voice calls (setup, >> >teardown, ...). The places where you see overhead occurring in the >> >Santiago proposal are indeed when dealing with multiple bearers for >> >multimedia, and, as Brian Rosen pointed out, in Audits. It seems to me >> >that this is acceptable because these operations will occur much less >> >frequently than the voice/fax/NAS setups. >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >John Segers >> > >> >HaoHou wrote: >> >> >> >> Jonh, >> >> >> >> Thanks for your reply, >> >> >> >> Please see comments below. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Second, the use of Add/Subtract/Modify commands. You are proposing to >> >> > use Add/Subtract to add media streams to a session or delete them from >> >> > it. This changes the semantics of the commands drastically. They are >> >> > intended to perform operations on Contexts (add or remove >> >> > Terminations). In the Santiago proposal this semantics is maintained. >> >> > Operations to change Termination parameters are performed using the >> >> > Modify command. >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > John Segers >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thats why the Santiago proposal makes the Modify command awkward. ? >> >> Suppose we have 3 bearer channels already in a Termination. >> >> In order to release one bearer channel, we have to list both the other two >> >> bearer channels in the MODIFY command. >> >> In order to add one more bearer channel, we have to list the new >> >> bearer channel and all the existed bearer channels in the MODIFY >> >> command. >> >> >> >> I dont think the change of semantics will affect the protocol and the >> >> implementation too much. Instead, it will make the protocol easier to >> >> be understood: >> >> As long as you want to add some entities into the context or >> termination, you >> >> use ADD. As long as you want to sbustract some entities from the context >> >> or termination, you use Subtract. It is a more natural way to express the >> >> intention >> >> of the commands. >> >> >> >> Could you tell me why Santiago proposal wants to keep the old semantics >> >> unchanged, >> >> after the big change of the Context and Termination concept? What does >> it gain? >> >> >> >> Id rather change the semantics to meet the change of the concept. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Hao >> > >> >-- >> >John Segers email: jsegers(a)lucent.com >> >Lucent Technologies Room HE 306 >> >Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 >> >P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954 >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------- >> Gunnar Hellström >> >> Ericsson Home Systems >> >> Tel +46 751 100 501 >> Fax +46 8 556 002 06 >> >> e-mail gunnar.hellstrom(a)omnitor.se >> Video +46 8 556 002 05 >> ------------------------------------- > >-- >John Segers email: jsegers(a)lucent.com >Lucent Technologies Room HE 306 >Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 >P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954 > > ------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Ericsson Home Systems Tel +46 751 100 501 Fax +46 8 556 002 06 e-mail gunnar.hellstrom(a)omnitor.se Video +46 8 556 002 05 -------------------------------------

2 1

A Virus was detected in the message.
by plclondon2.admin＠PLC.CWPLC.COM 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

The mail message subject: Take Care of Vicious Virus! to Stephen.Glick(a)plc.cwplc.com Our anti-virus software has detected a VIRUS in this message. PLEASE CLEAN AND RESEND.

1 0

R:Take Care of Vicious Virus!
by Tosco Federico 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

Thank you. Also at CSELT we had problems with such virus. Federico CSELT Via Reiss Romoli 274 10148 TORINO, Italy Phone: +39 0112285321 Fax: +39 0112285295 E_mail: federico.tosco(a)cselt.it > ---------- > Da: Sakae OKUBO[SMTP:okubo@GITI.OR.JP] > Risposta a: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group > 16 > Inviato: venerdì 11 giugno 1999 11.50 > A: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > Oggetto: Take Care of Vicious Virus! > > Dear Q12-14/16 experts, > > I have received the following message from a US registrant of this > reflector > in response to my message regarding the update of Mr. Tosco's meeting > reports posted yesterday: > > >> Hi Sakae ! > >> I received your email and I shall send you a reply ASAP. > >> Till then, take a look at the attached zipped docs. > >> bye. > >> <<zipped_files.exe>> > > I obediently tried to read the zipped_files.exe and all the Office files > on > my Windows machine were destroyed. > > This seems to be due to a new virus W32/ExploreZip. Please take care! > > 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

Take Care of Vicious Virus!
by Sakae OKUBO 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

Dear Q12-14/16 experts, I have received the following message from a US registrant of this reflector in response to my message regarding the update of Mr. Tosco's meeting reports posted yesterday: >> Hi Sakae ! >> I received your email and I shall send you a reply ASAP. >> Till then, take a look at the attached zipped docs. >> bye. >> <<zipped_files.exe>> I obediently tried to read the zipped_files.exe and all the Office files on my Windows machine were destroyed. This seems to be due to a new virus W32/ExploreZip. Please take care! 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

Re: Questions on H.GCP applied on text telephony
by Gunnar Hellstrom 10 Jun '99

10 Jun '99

The structure you described for bearers, terminations, multiplexors, contexts etc. described seems reasonable. For a PSTN termination in text telephone mode of the highest level, where the PSTN way of alternating between voice and text is supported, I see it best described as a kind of user-driven multiplexor. When there is a carrier from the text phone, the multiplexor conveys the text stream. When the carrier ceases, the multiplexor conveys the audio stream. Text arriving from an IP termination may cause the state of the PSTN multiplexor to change from audio to text and then transmit the text in the prevailing text telephone mode. Audio coming from an IP termination while the multiplexor is in the text mode can not go through. The multiplexor stays in the text mode until the user makes the alteration. ( usually by lifting the handset and "stealing" the line from the textphone.) On the IP side, H.323 Annex G is supposed to support simultaneous audio and text. There is no need for this kind of user driven multiplexor there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I understand that the requirements behind this description should go into section 11.2.4 of megaco requirements (D-286 of Santiago). But where in H.gcp do you want the description of parameters and functions needed in the gateway components for this functionality? Gunnar Hellström At 10:09 AM 1999-06-10 +0200, John Segers wrote: >Hao, > >In the current MEGACO model as described in draft-01, a Termination >describes the media and in-band signaling for one user, and how they are >transported etc. A Context associates all Terminations in a session and >implies audio mixing if there are more than two. > >This idea is retained in the Santiago work. Going to multiple media, a >Termination still describes the media and in-band signaling for one >user. A Context still associates all Terminations in a session. For >multimedia sessions, the mixing/switching can no longer be implied, but >will be described by means of Context properties. If there is only >audio, nothing changes in the Context. > >In order to allow H.320 and H.324 where multiple media are multiplexed >on one or more bearers, there needs to be a distinction between >TerminationID and BearerID in order to retain the concept that a >Termination describes the media, in-band signaling and transport. > >You see, the goal was to stay close to the basic monomedia connection >model for multimedia, always keeping in mind that there should be as >little overhead as possible for controlling voice calls (setup, >teardown, ...). The places where you see overhead occurring in the >Santiago proposal are indeed when dealing with multiple bearers for >multimedia, and, as Brian Rosen pointed out, in Audits. It seems to me >that this is acceptable because these operations will occur much less >frequently than the voice/fax/NAS setups. > >Regards, > >John Segers > >HaoHou wrote: >> >> Jonh, >> >> Thanks for your reply, >> >> Please see comments below. >> >> > >> > Second, the use of Add/Subtract/Modify commands. You are proposing to >> > use Add/Subtract to add media streams to a session or delete them from >> > it. This changes the semantics of the commands drastically. They are >> > intended to perform operations on Contexts (add or remove >> > Terminations). In the Santiago proposal this semantics is maintained. >> > Operations to change Termination parameters are performed using the >> > Modify command. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > John Segers >> > >> >> Thats why the Santiago proposal makes the Modify command awkward. ? >> Suppose we have 3 bearer channels already in a Termination. >> In order to release one bearer channel, we have to list both the other two >> bearer channels in the MODIFY command. >> In order to add one more bearer channel, we have to list the new >> bearer channel and all the existed bearer channels in the MODIFY >> command. >> >> I dont think the change of semantics will affect the protocol and the >> implementation too much. Instead, it will make the protocol easier to >> be understood: >> As long as you want to add some entities into the context or termination, you >> use ADD. As long as you want to sbustract some entities from the context >> or termination, you use Subtract. It is a more natural way to express the >> intention >> of the commands. >> >> Could you tell me why Santiago proposal wants to keep the old semantics >> unchanged, >> after the big change of the Context and Termination concept? What does it gain? >> >> Id rather change the semantics to meet the change of the concept. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Hao > >-- >John Segers email: jsegers(a)lucent.com >Lucent Technologies Room HE 306 >Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 >P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954 > > ------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Ericsson Home Systems Tel +46 751 100 501 Fax +46 8 556 002 06 e-mail gunnar.hellstrom(a)omnitor.se Video +46 8 556 002 05 -------------------------------------

1 0

WP2 reports of the Santiago meeting have been updated
by Sakae OKUBO 10 Jun '99

10 Jun '99

Dear Q.12-14/16 experts, A set of Mr. Tosco's WP2 meeting reports at the ftp site has been replaced with the final version. ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9905_San/Tosco_WP2_report_9905.zip or http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/9905_San/Tosco_WP2_report_9905.zip 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