Ernst,
I have proposed previously that we consider extracting Annex G from H.225.0 and letting it stand on its own (as H.22x, for example). If we did that, perhaps it would address some people's concerns.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Horvath Ernst" ernst.horvath@SIEMENS.AT To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:38 AM Subject: AW: Annex Gv2
Paul,
I welcome the proposal not to approve H.225.0 annex G v2 now.
In my contribution to Q.5/16 I suggest to make the mobility management protocol a "profile" of the annex G protocol, after adding the few extras that mobility management would require. However, some members strongly oppose to calling mobility management "H.225.0 annex G". Since the arguing is about names rather than content, it would be undesirable to duplicate
the
work and define nearly identical protocols in two different
recommendations.
Maybe we can define a "master protocol" in a separate recommendation and then derive various profiles from this master protocol: for the current annex G (reference point A), for reference point B (GK-BE), for mobility management, etc.
Regards, Ernst Horvath Siemens AG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2001 06:14 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Betreff: Re: Annex Gv2
Paul,
I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it relates to Q.5 work should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and comments I've received from others relating to reference point D. I believe the latter two issues are most significant.
Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK talk to the BE?" and "What good does it do to have the usage information in Annex G when it can't be passed to/from the GK?" Consideration should be given to whether those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) and whether we want to answer those question within the protocol at this time.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Reddy, Paul K" paul.k.reddy@INTEL.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2
Hi Radhika,
With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined
the Objectives,
scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's
meeting
in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1
(Mobility for
Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not
been decided as of
last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions
have come in for
Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for
discussion on Mobility
protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or
other protocol
etc.)
PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of
H.225.0 Annex Gv2,
if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul
regards, Paul
Paul K. Reddy Rapporteur for Q.5/16 Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 Email: paul.k.reddy@intel.com
-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2
Hi, Paul:
Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect
to mobility as
well as non-mobility as follows:
- Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in
H.225.0 Annex G
version 2 can be considered for approval.
- Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention
to support
mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT
be considered for
approval because of the following:
a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs
to be defined
that is consistent with its charter.
b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance
to item a.
c. All applications can use the common protocol for
HLF/VLF/AuF (and other
value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will
NOT have any
application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G).
d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to
be done for
H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS +
H.225.0 Annex G. These
are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY
(applicable for each
application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.).
This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions.
Hope this will help.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Annex Gv2
Folks,
The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve
Annex G at this
meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to
warrant approval. I
have also heard comments from some that additional work
should be done in
the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also
have the open
question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work.
For the benefit of those not planning to attend the
meeting, please tell me
if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2
at this meeting.
Thanks, Paul
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv@mailbag.intel.com > >For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to > listserv@mailbag.intel.com >For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com