Radhika and all We have a crying need to move forward with H.323, in order to offer value to our customers (such as your company :-). A lot of expert time is being spent on REAL needs such as H.248, robustness, better signalling support, better service control and mobility. It is a question of priorities that each delegate should make on how they best serve their industry. As has always been the case in SG16, if there is a willingness of people to contribute, then the topic advances, otherwise it stalls. (good example is H.246 Annex D). In my humble opinion, it is unfare to ask people like Paul to spend their time here. Let's wait for the interested parties to come up with proposals. For what it's worth, I second Orit's motion on her #2 option. Again - SG16 should be focusing on added value, rather than on added market confusion.
Boaz
-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:19 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hi, Everyone:
I understand what Paul has pointed out. We know that a lot work needs to be done when it comes to an agreement between the two standard organizations: ITU-T SG16 and IETF. We have seen how other works had been done in the past cooperatively despite the difficulty.
However, there is a crying need in the industry for the H.323-SIP interoperability standard. We are always optimistic that the good-will will always prevail for the benefit of the user community of the whole world as these standard organizations are committed to provide interoperability.
We not talking about the work for the H.323-SIP interoperability that is being done in other forums (e.g., IMTC, ETSI/TIPHON, and others). These works will go on and they did in the past, and as they will be doing now.
We are working for an internationally acceptable standard where both ITU-T and IETF will make it a formal standard. Accordingly, we are working as per agreement made in the last SG16 (Feb'00) meeting: To bring contributions in the SG16 ( - in Q.14/16 and joint discussions will be held for both Q.13 and Q.14).
It can also been seen that a request has also been sent to the IETF for a BOF session in the upcoming meeting (March'00).
Efforts are underway to overcome all difficulties. I appreciate Paul to clarify all aspects of difficulties that we might have to face for working in this new area and we are also counting on Paul's support for our effort as well.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 1:15 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Folks,
I agree that the goal of a standards body is to create
specifications to
allow interoperability. However, this is "delicate"
territory. This work
is not similar to creating a new annex to H.246 wherein the
ITU specifies
interoperability between various systems or protocols
defined elsewhere in
the ITU. This work involves describing how to interwork an
ITU system
with an IETF RFC.
It's not an impossible task, but one that may lead to
tremendous debate.
It is quite obvious that some members of the ITU and some
members of the IETF
have very basic philosophical differences. I can tell you that some members of the IETF will quickly reject anything the ITU does to standardize interoperability. I can also tell you that some of those
members will
also reject anything ETSI does, as well.
This is not to say that I am opposed to such an effort-- if
companies
support the idea, that is enough of an indication to me
that people feel
it's necessary and should be done. However, if we head
down that path, I
really believe that this should be a joint effort between
the ITU and the
IETF. Why? Because there are strengths and weaknesses with both protocols and one could easily introduce bias into such a
specification in such a
way as to highlight the strengths of one protocol and the
weaknesses of the
other.
And, of course, everyone here knows that H.323 is far
superior to SIP,
right? :-)
Again, I do not disagree with the work. However, as sad
and pathetic as
this statement may sound, it's true: the IETF members
(especially the
supporters of SIP) have little respect for the ITU and,
unless we do this
jointly, our lone efforts are likely to not be well received. I've already heard enough negative remarks about the efforts the ITU is
undertaking
(especially in SG13) to describe new Internet protocols;
the claims are
that "that is work the IETF does and the ITU has no business doing it".
It has already been suggested that a third party may be the
better choice
for such a work. Mr. Taylor mentioned that ETSI may
already be doing
this. Did I understand that correctly? If that's the case, and
if we can get
the IETF to agree to allow them to do such work, we should
probably let them
do the work.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" rrroy@ATT.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hi, Everyone:
I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has
also been the
case
for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting.
More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly
indicated that we
should
bring contributions to get the work started. The
interworking between
H.323
and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed
jointly with
Q.13
and Q.14).
There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP Interworking. A large number of people throughout the
world (starting
from
the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me.
The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide
"INTEROPERABILITY."
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy@att.com
-----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:42 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Dear Rob! Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully. The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a
contribution
for Osaka meeting. I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward,
especially if
many
people see it as valuable.
BTW: Who said the work shouldn't be done jointly? My
point was that
it
may start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU
and IETF". And
after all we are NOT talking about joined standard
definition. In worst case
about joined Network definition. :-))
Cheers, 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 -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com To: 'Orit Levin' orit@radvision.com;
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Orit,
This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report:
======= Start
3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al] This was presented together with D.413. Comments included: · Concerns about joint development with IETF · Which version of SIP would be used? · Suggest postponing this until the next study period -
need to look
at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and
see how output
compares with phrasing of work in these questions · Activities should include comparing call models,
media signaling
· Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should
not be done in
SG16 · Forming a new question might not be the best answer -
this would
split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14
have moved away
from
joint sessions) · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use
only the IETF
equivalent of a Recommendation) · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions
on how to
approach
the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in
a controlled
architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a
framework.
See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report.
======= End
This is the statement in the Q.13 report:
======= Start
D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323
and SIP Networks
This calls for the creation of an interoperability
question in SG16,
that
would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that
there are several
versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to
interoperate with SIP
as
SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom
of starting a
new
question near the end of the study period was also
questioned. It was
also mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of
defining
the procedures and architecture that would apply to
this work. One
suggestion is that interoperability should be between standards
bodies
such as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of
the work, i.e.
that
the target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents
produced by
various other bodies. There were various expressions of
support that this
should
be studied, and contributions related to architectures and
priorities are
solicited. It was agreed that contributions should
address both Q13
and
Q14.
======= End
I cannot see in these statements any thing representing
an agreement
as to
the work to be performed. Your attached terms of
reference were not
approved at the working party, which is required, nor
in the Question
meeting. Without an agreement as to the scope, I do
not see how to
move
the work forward, even if many people see it as valuable.
Therefore you
paper
on terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to
the Osaka
meeting
for discussion.
I do know that the proposal for a new question was
rejected at the
question level, and not brought forward to the working party or
study group
level.
Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work
with H.225.0
Annex
G to TRIP. Other items are to follow.
For me one of the problems is the culture clash. I do
not feel that
the
ITU should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not
accept any IETF
person
as an H.323 expert. Therefore the work should be done
jointly. No
one
wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is
the process to
be
used?
Bob
Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com
-----Original Message----- From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hello Sebestyen! There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the
same meaning,
but I
am sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva
meeting additional
related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I
was referring to
the
attached paper. (You will find references to relevant
contributions in
this paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible directions. We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an
understanding
of the work we would like to pursue and prepare
contributions for
Osaka
meeting. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27
Istvan.Sebestyen@icn.siemens.de
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com;
'Orit
Levin' orit@radvision.com Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Orit, I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I
have only found in
TD-74
(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages:
"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking
This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP
interworking.
D.413(2/16) [Canada] - Interworking Between H.323
and SIP Networks
This calls for the creation of an interoperability
question in SG16,
that
would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that
there are several
versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to
interoperate with
SIP as
SIP is ill-defined at this point in time. The wisdom
of starting a
new
question near the end of the study period was also
questioned. It
was
also
mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done
in terms of
defining
the procedures and architecture that would apply to
this work. One
suggestion is that interoperability should be between
standards
bodies
such
as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of
the work, i.e.
that
the
target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type
documents produced by
various
other bodies. There were various expressions of
support that this
should
be
studied, and contributions related to architectures
and priorities
are
solicited. It was agreed that contributions should
address both Q13
and
Q14."
Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the
interim work?
Regards, Istvan
Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN M CS27, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen@icn.siemens.de;
istvan@sebestyen.de
E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen@yahoo.com; Siemens
Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4
Siemens FTP: ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de
--
From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com] Reply To: Orit Levin Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hi! I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX"
work in ITU-T
as
described in the initial paper.
H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new
specifications
in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF.
This is a time to
consider each one of these specifications to be
applied to H.323.
If
found
useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End
Services) or
just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP
scenarios),
standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated.
These two are
connected since the first definitely helps the second.
The written above agenda is a proposal for the work
scope. Based on
our
discussions, it seems like more then one company
would like to see
this
work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability.
(forget the
name
:-)
) If we agree that standardization is needed for
this kind of work,
the
only possible way to do it is to participate in
ITU-T process (with
all
its meaning).
Currently we are in the beginning of the process
sorting out topics
of
our
interest. I think most of us are aware of the work
being done in
other
organizations. We would like to see experts
(including from TIPHON
and
IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting
from the mailing
list)
keeping us from repeating their work and being
aligned with them.
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