Hi Everyone:
It is a complete surprise!
Does the ITU-T SG16 mandates that there must NOT be any standards for the "Inter-Zone" Communications in a given domain for H.323?
The inter-zone communications in a given domain was discussed in all conference calls. It ia an accepted fact that we do need a standard for the 'Inter-Zone" communications in a given domain. No opposition was raised by anyone. Mr. Wiryaman, VideoServer, made this point very clearly to all of us in support of APC-1385. In fact, Mr. Wiryaman later further clearified this in his email. No opposition was raised by anyone.
Why do we participate in biweekly conference calls and send our emails and waste our time, if it is thought that we have to go in a cirlcle?
In the last Cannes H.323 ITU-T SG16 meeting, it was completely realized that no work would go forward if the both inter-zone and inter-domain were NOT addressed.
In Yokosuka H.323 ITU-T SG16 meeting, the very narrow area of standard development was opposed, and APC-1385 is a proof. No one has given a mandate that the so-called hierarchical border-GK type concept that has a very limited applicability will be the ONLY model that everyone of us has to follow BLINDLY without questions. And Annex-G MUST always be written accordingly as if it has become everybody's UNQUESTIONABLE holy mandate, and ignore everything whatever is talked in the bi-weekly conference calls and emails.
It is the time for moving forward!
H.323 has become one the most important standards that ITU-T ever produced because of its universal use in transport indpendent (i.e., not tied to IP, ATM, FR, or other transport protocols) manner.
In inter-GK communications, the same UNIVERSALITY is required, NOT to limit it by raising the so-called "brick walls" that create opprtunities for proprietary implementations.
We have now clear choices:
Do we want to stall the standard works that do NOT address both "inter-zone" and inter-domain" communications? Or, Do we want to move forward addressing the both "inter-zone" and inter-domain" communications?
If we stall the standard works for the inter-GK communications, many people may loose interest in participating H.323 ITU-T SG16 meetings, and other forums and standard bodies will take those works. And it will NOT be in the best interst of the ITU-T members. (I do not know for sure whether all companies that participate in H.323 meetings are the members of ITU-T).
Therefore, it is an appeal to all of us that we should develop our standards that become UNIVERSAL for all architectural models.
Thanks and regards,
Radhika R. Roy AT&T, USA Tel: +1 732 949 8657 Email: rrroy@att.com
From: Glen Freundlich[SMTP:ggf@lucent.com] Reply To: ggf@lucent.com Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 1:18 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call
Please see my responses editted in below.
Regards, Glen
Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC wrote:
Hi Everyone:
I have few comments on the revised Annex G writeup.
- The title is OK
- The scope is not OK. As we talked last time that the scope should be
extended to include the following: * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications Between (Administrative) Domains
Did we have consensus on that opinion? If so, I'll change the text and I apologize for missing that. I remember saying that the stake I was placing in the ground was that the protocol is the same for both of these (and some text in the annex states that). Until we have something that shows otherwise I see no reason to change the basic direction of the annex.
In Yokosuka we set the focus of Annex G to be communication between administrative domains. If we start broadening the scope we run the risk of delaying the annex.
- APC-1385 provides outlines for the "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications
within a Domain". The write-up of Annex G should be modified
accordingly.
- The items 2 and 3 had been discussed in the last conference call. Are
we
going through a circle again? 5. The comments on the remaining text of the document will be reviewed
when
the fundamental direction of Annex G is put along the line as pointed
out
above.
Recent AT&T's proposed contribution has also been submitted to
complement
the write-up in the area of "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain".
Thanks and regards,
Radhika R. Roy AT&T Tel: +1 732 949 8657 Email: rrroy@att.com
-- Glen Freundlich ggf@lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA