- sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: Comments on Draft F-series documents
by OKUBO Sakae 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Dear Ms. Sun and all, At 11:16 +0800 05/06/20, sunmingjun wrote: >attached is the second draft F.MMCIP, thank you. This has been placed at the avc-site for your review: <http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0507_Gen/Working_Docs/FMMC IP_050620.zip> -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

[SUSPECT ATTACHMENT] H.248.1 Editing Comments Week 5
by Christian Groves 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Hello Kevin, all, Please find attached my week 5 comments marked up in the attached document. I have used Albrecht's comments as a base. I also have an additional IG comment on the ABNF (week 4). Comments? Regards, Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENT ABOVE THIS LINE IS *NOT* FROM CISCO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING: This message has an attachment that could contain executable code. Please review the attachment carefully to ensure you do not inadvertently execute embedded programs that could contain viruses. We suggest you review the following URL to stay up-to-date with current virus threats: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/library/mcafee/virus_info.shtml Please be aware many viruses attempt to look like legitimate email or notifications from anti-virus systems. We will clearly mark a seperation between our notifications and the original email as follows: "CONTENT ABOVE THIS LINE IS *NOT* FROM CISCO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY" For further reference information about viruses and email antivirus efforts within Cisco, please visit: http://wwwin.cisco.com/it/ems/services/antiviral If your concern isn't addressed by the information in this notification or the above web page, you may open a support request: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/ Select "Messaging", "Email-Related", "Mail Routing" Please include in the text of your case the following information: * Full headers of the message. Documentation on displaying the full headers is available at this URL: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/library/faqs/solution002471.html * This unique quarantine identifier: j5K8KgDg015974 If the matter is urgent, you may follow up by calling one of the below referenced numbers. Please make every effort to provide the above requested information via the support web tool prior to calling as it will greatly aid the resolution of your issue. Americas: 1 408 526 8888 Asiapac +61 2 8446 8888 EMEA +31 20 485 4888 Japan +81 3 5549 6888 US (Toll Free) 1| 800| 888| 8187| (ext.68888) Thank you for your cooperation, Enterprise Messaging Services Cisco Systems, Inc

1 0

Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Christian Groves 19 Jun '05

19 Jun '05

Hello Sasha, Please see my response below. Regards, Christian Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > Hi Christian > > Thanks, again. > > It looks like I will have some more question about H.248.19. > > Meanwhile. > > In H.248.19 defines vwp/wxp and vwp/wyp as being from 0 to 10000. > > The description text states: > This property is set by the MC to represent the horizontal "X" position > of the bottom left hand corner of a window. > 0 represents the left hand side of a screen, > 10000 the right hand side of a screen. > > So it makes the size of the screen equal to 10001 units. > > In the same time vwp/wh and vwp/wl are also defined to be 0 to 10000. > > I think it means that it is impossible to create window which fills the > entire screen. > (Screen is 10001 units and the biggest window is only 10000). [CHG] Given a display 10000 by 10000 pixels the way I saw the property working was that 0,0 represented the bottom left hand corner of the display/window. A window position 0,0 size 1,1 would draw a pixel 1,1 starting at this point. A window placed at 10000,10000 couldn't actually have a positive size as it would exceed the display. > > Do I misunderstand the description text? > Shouldn't the vwp/wxp and vwp/wyp be defined in range from 0 to 9999? > Or probably the range is OK, however the 10000 is outside of screen? [CHG] So technically 10000 is outside the meaningful range for displaying anything. > > What do you think? > ==================================================================== > > Another small editorial issue is that in H.248.19 on Figure 8 the text > references the vwpcvsp/ovs, where I believe it should be cvsp/ovs. [CHG] Is the editorial issue in Figure 8 itself? It should be cvsp/ovs but I can't see where the error occurs. > > > > Thanks, > Sasha > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ericsson.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:55 PM > To: Sasha Ruditsky > Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. > > Hello Sasha, > > In thus case the text encoding would use H.248.15 Gateway control > protocol: SDP > H.248 package attribute. > > Regards, Christian > > Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > > >>Hi Christian >> >>Thanks. >> >>One more question. >>In H.248.19 most of the properties inside packages are specified to be > > >>"Defined in: Local/Remote". >>>From what I know about H.248 -- local/remote descriptors contain SDP >>messages. >> >>How do the H.248.19 properties coexist with SDP? >>Is it only possible in binary encoding mode? >> >>Thanks, >>Sasha >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ERICSSON.COM] >>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:35 AM >>To: Sasha Ruditsky >>Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com >>Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. >> >>Hello Sasha, >> >>There is no hard rule of what to propose. It really depends on the >>type of information you want added. >> >>I think the only time the package extension should be used is if the >>added properties/signals/events provide a set of functions of their >>own right. e.g. >>would it makes sense that these properties could be a package by >>themselves but need another package to operate. For example: The tone >>gen package. The DTMF was added as a extension package as DTMF >>generation is its own subset functionality but is related to the >>generation of tones. >> >>Regards, Christian >> >>Sasha Ruditsky wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi >>> >>>I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties >>>to one of the H.248.19 packages. >>>>From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two >>>ways of doing this. >>> >>>* Creating a new version of an existing package >>>* Creating a new package that extends the existing one. >>> >>> >>>Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which >>>of these two mechanisms should be uses? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Sasha >>>. >>> >> >> > >

1 0

Working documents
by OKUBO Sakae 18 Jun '05

18 Jun '05

Dear SG16 experts, Your review is requested. At 15:47 +0800 05/06/13, Niexiuying wrote: >I appreciate that Mr. OKUBO Sakae have given us the comments to >draft F.dl and F.avod. I modified the draft F.dl and F.avod based on >his comments. Attached is the new version of draft F.dl. The reply >to Mr. OKUBO Sakaea's comments is as follows: You comments to the >reversion of F.dl and comments to the reply are solicited. I will >send the new version of Draft F.avod soon. This updated draft F.dl has been placed at the avc-site: <http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0507_Gen/Working_Docs/Fdl_ 050613.zip> At 07:02 -0400 05/06/13, Giles Chamberlin wrote: >Attached document is based on AVD-2718 from the Biel meeting. >Modifications are to take into account the comments from the meeting >and to improve clarity. In particular I hope I’ve succeeded in not >breaking fast connect. > >As you’ll see form the markup, there’s more to do, but hopefully >that’s mostly editorial. This draft has been placed at the avc-site: <http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0507_Gen/Working_Docs/h460 .fantas_v1.zip> -- Best regards, OKUBO Sakae e-mail: sokubo(a)waseda.jp Visiting Professor Graduate School of Science and Engineering Waseda University ****************************************************************** Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice ******************************************************************

1 0

RE: The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Sasha Ruditsky 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Hi Christian Thanks, again. It looks like I will have some more question about H.248.19. Meanwhile. In H.248.19 defines vwp/wxp and vwp/wyp as being from 0 to 10000. The description text states: This property is set by the MC to represent the horizontal "X" position of the bottom left hand corner of a window. 0 represents the left hand side of a screen, 10000 the right hand side of a screen. So it makes the size of the screen equal to 10001 units. In the same time vwp/wh and vwp/wl are also defined to be 0 to 10000. I think it means that it is impossible to create window which fills the entire screen. (Screen is 10001 units and the biggest window is only 10000). Do I misunderstand the description text? Shouldn't the vwp/wxp and vwp/wyp be defined in range from 0 to 9999? Or probably the range is OK, however the 10000 is outside of screen? What do you think? ==================================================================== Another small editorial issue is that in H.248.19 on Figure 8 the text references the vwpcvsp/ovs, where I believe it should be cvsp/ovs. Thanks, Sasha -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:55 PM To: Sasha Ruditsky Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. Hello Sasha, In thus case the text encoding would use H.248.15 Gateway control protocol: SDP H.248 package attribute. Regards, Christian Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > Hi Christian > > Thanks. > > One more question. > In H.248.19 most of the properties inside packages are specified to be > "Defined in: Local/Remote". >>From what I know about H.248 -- local/remote descriptors contain SDP > messages. > > How do the H.248.19 properties coexist with SDP? > Is it only possible in binary encoding mode? > > Thanks, > Sasha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ERICSSON.COM] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:35 AM > To: Sasha Ruditsky > Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. > > Hello Sasha, > > There is no hard rule of what to propose. It really depends on the > type of information you want added. > > I think the only time the package extension should be used is if the > added properties/signals/events provide a set of functions of their > own right. e.g. > would it makes sense that these properties could be a package by > themselves but need another package to operate. For example: The tone > gen package. The DTMF was added as a extension package as DTMF > generation is its own subset functionality but is related to the > generation of tones. > > Regards, Christian > > Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > > >>Hi >> >>I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties >>to one of the H.248.19 packages. >>>From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two >>ways of doing this. >> >>* Creating a new version of an existing package >>* Creating a new package that extends the existing one. >> >> >>Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which >>of these two mechanisms should be uses? >> >>Thanks, >>Sasha >>. >> > >

1 0

[SUSPECT ATTACHMENT] H.248.1 Editing Meeting Week 4 comments
by Christian Groves 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Hello Kevin, all, Please find attached my comments for week 4 of the editing meeting. Rather than a marked up document its in the form of an IG update. I have attempted to capture items that have been discussed on the Megaco list or have been mentioned in Tispan. I'm not sure whether all the items fall into the realm of editorial only but none of the items add new functionality. I intend on presenting this DC (with any new raised issues) to the July meeting. Of interest to the Week 4 ABNF are items 1,2 and 3. Comments? Regards, Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENT ABOVE THIS LINE IS *NOT* FROM CISCO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING: This message has an attachment that could contain executable code. Please review the attachment carefully to ensure you do not inadvertently execute embedded programs that could contain viruses. We suggest you review the following URL to stay up-to-date with current virus threats: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/library/mcafee/virus_info.shtml Please be aware many viruses attempt to look like legitimate email or notifications from anti-virus systems. We will clearly mark a seperation between our notifications and the original email as follows: "CONTENT ABOVE THIS LINE IS *NOT* FROM CISCO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY" For further reference information about viruses and email antivirus efforts within Cisco, please visit: http://wwwin.cisco.com/it/ems/services/antiviral If your concern isn't addressed by the information in this notification or the above web page, you may open a support request: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/ Select "Messaging", "Email-Related", "Mail Routing" Please include in the text of your case the following information: * Full headers of the message. Documentation on displaying the full headers is available at this URL: http://wwwin.cisco.com/support/library/faqs/solution002471.html * This unique quarantine identifier: j5H45lQ3023840 If the matter is urgent, you may follow up by calling one of the below referenced numbers. Please make every effort to provide the above requested information via the support web tool prior to calling as it will greatly aid the resolution of your issue. Americas: 1 408 526 8888 Asiapac +61 2 8446 8888 EMEA +31 20 485 4888 Japan +81 3 5549 6888 US (Toll Free) 1| 800| 888| 8187| (ext.68888) Thank you for your cooperation, Enterprise Messaging Services Cisco Systems, Inc

1 0

Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Christian Groves 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Hello Sasha, In thus case the text encoding would use H.248.15 Gateway control protocol: SDP H.248 package attribute. Regards, Christian Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > Hi Christian > > Thanks. > > One more question. > In H.248.19 most of the properties inside packages are specified to be > "Defined in: Local/Remote". >>From what I know about H.248 -- local/remote descriptors contain SDP > messages. > > How do the H.248.19 properties coexist with SDP? > Is it only possible in binary encoding mode? > > Thanks, > Sasha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ERICSSON.COM] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:35 AM > To: Sasha Ruditsky > Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. > > Hello Sasha, > > There is no hard rule of what to propose. It really depends on the type > of information you want added. > > I think the only time the package extension should be used is if the > added properties/signals/events provide a set of functions of their own > right. e.g. > would it makes sense that these properties could be a package by > themselves but need another package to operate. For example: The tone > gen package. The DTMF was added as a extension package as DTMF > generation is its own subset functionality but is related to the > generation of tones. > > Regards, Christian > > Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > > >>Hi >> >>I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties >>to one of the H.248.19 packages. >>>From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two >>ways of doing this. >> >>* Creating a new version of an existing package >>* Creating a new package that extends the existing one. >> >> >>Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which >>of these two mechanisms should be uses? >> >>Thanks, >>Sasha >>. >> > >

1 0

RE: The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Sasha Ruditsky 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Hi Christian Thanks. One more question. In H.248.19 most of the properties inside packages are specified to be "Defined in: Local/Remote". >From what I know about H.248 -- local/remote descriptors contain SDP messages. How do the H.248.19 properties coexist with SDP? Is it only possible in binary encoding mode? Thanks, Sasha -----Original Message----- From: Christian Groves [mailto:christian.groves@ERICSSON.COM] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:35 AM To: Sasha Ruditsky Cc: itu-sg16(a)external.cisco.com Subject: Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package. Hello Sasha, There is no hard rule of what to propose. It really depends on the type of information you want added. I think the only time the package extension should be used is if the added properties/signals/events provide a set of functions of their own right. e.g. would it makes sense that these properties could be a package by themselves but need another package to operate. For example: The tone gen package. The DTMF was added as a extension package as DTMF generation is its own subset functionality but is related to the generation of tones. Regards, Christian Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > Hi > > I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties > to one of the H.248.19 packages. >>From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two > ways of doing this. > > * Creating a new version of an existing package > * Creating a new package that extends the existing one. > > > Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which > of these two mechanisms should be uses? > > Thanks, > Sasha > . >

1 0

Re: The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Christian Groves 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Hello Sasha, There is no hard rule of what to propose. It really depends on the type of information you want added. I think the only time the package extension should be used is if the added properties/signals/events provide a set of functions of their own right. e.g. would it makes sense that these properties could be a package by themselves but need another package to operate. For example: The tone gen package. The DTMF was added as a extension package as DTMF generation is its own subset functionality but is related to the generation of tones. Regards, Christian Sasha Ruditsky wrote: > Hi > > I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties to > one of the H.248.19 packages. >>From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two > ways of doing this. > > * Creating a new version of an existing package > * Creating a new package that extends the existing one. > > > Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which of > these two mechanisms should be uses? > > Thanks, > Sasha > . >

1 0

The question about extension of an H.248 package.
by Sasha Ruditsky 15 Jun '05

15 Jun '05

Hi I'm working on a proposal for July meeting to add some new properties to one of the H.248.19 packages. >From H.248 document it appears that there are defined (at least) two ways of doing this. * Creating a new version of an existing package * Creating a new package that extends the existing one. Can somebody please comment on the factors helping to determine which of these two mechanisms should be uses? Thanks, Sasha

1 0