I second what Bahman said. It should be H.323-SIP or SIP-H.323 Interworking. Cheers. Regards, Joon
-----Original Message----- From: Bahman Mobasser [mailto:bahman@bahman.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:50 PM To: Orit Levin; Tom-PT Taylor; martinze@cig.mot.com; ranga.dendi@wcom.com; joon_maeng@vtel.com; Francois Audet; Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser@alcatel.fr; jo@teles.com; Joerg Ott Subject: RE: H.323-SIP Discussion
I find the title H.323-Internet a bit disconcerting. Wasn't H.323 usable on Internet up to now? The title seems to suggest H.323 on Internet is something new!
I know it is just a title, but I prefer simply H.323-SIP.
Bahman
Bahman Mobasser Tel: +33 1 30771608 Alcatel Mobile: +33 6 12091822 10 rue Latécoère Fax: +33 1 30779914 78140 Vélizy Voice & Fax Mail: +33 1 5301 0789 France Roaming email: Bahman@Bahman.org
<< OLE Object: Ensemble OLE >>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] > Sent: jeudi 24 février 2000 01:51 > To: Tom-PT Taylor; martinze@cig.mot.com; > ranga.dendi@wcom.com; joon_maeng@vtel.com; Francois Audet; > Dave Walker; Paul E. Jones; Henning Schulzrinne; Roy, Radhika > R, ALARC; Stephen Terrill; bahman.mobasser@alcatel.fr; > jo@teles.com; Joerg Ott > Subject: Re: H.323-SIP Discussion > > Hello all! > I enjoyed to see a positive discussion this morning. > Therefore I would like to move the topic to the SG-16 mailing list and > indicate it by [H.323-Internet] topic. > François, any ideas for an alternative name? "SIP" is > limiting, "IETF" is > political... > > Joon, I think that a "scope" chapter is a good idea. I > completely agree that > before diving into details of our contributions, we have to > formulate this > part. On the other hand, I see it as an output of our initial > discussion, > rather then its starting point. If you already have in mind > some specifics > on the scope chapter, go ahead and put them on the (mailing) paper. > > In regards to starting a formal joined work with IETF and > pushing for a > working group. It is a sensitive issue (Are we in agreement on that?) > Everybody (as a company and as an individual) is free to > join, initiate or > participate in various standards bodies and pursue their goals. These > initiatives can be helpful for our work as well. I wouldn't > start our ITU > work from formal definition of relationships with other > standards bodies. As > we can see from Henning's mail, the good will from all of us > is a great > starting point! > I am afraid that not all of us will go to Australia. My > company (as many > others) will have representatives in SIP, Megaco and other > relevant working > groups. Nevertheless lets start the official H.323-Internet > work at ITU. > I hope to see more specific topics of interest and "a will" > to address them > in contributions for Osaka meeting. I will incorporate > François' additions. > Stephen, could you list IETF latest topics, list of services > and level of > scenarios that you would like to consider as a part of this work. > I wouldn't like to address the same things as TIPHON and > IETF do. They are > doing very well and we may help them if needed. All of us > have different > interests, but my personal opinion is that > - providing end user with end-to-end basic++ connectivity > - enhancing H.323 by using IETF technologies (which > definitely helps the > first one) > - finding common areas of interest among the companies > are the criteria for defining our work items. > BTW: Conference call is good, but lets do some work at home and on the > mailing list before we have an agenda to discuss. > Best Regards, > Orit Levin > RADVision Inc. > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420 > Mahwah, NJ 07430 > Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230) > Fax: 1 201 529 3516 > www.radvision.com > orit@radvision.com