Bob,
I was not suggesting that we use the h323-ID field any differently-- it was the "h323" field inside the supportedProtocols choice. It is used to indicate a gateway that gateways to H.323 devices. However, it could serve just as well to say it gateways to any IP telephony protocol. That's why I suggested we call it "ipgw".
Whether we do that or add a "sip" field makes no difference to me, but the latter option may take 2 years.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Callaghan, Robert" Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com To: "'Paul E. Jones'" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:18 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Paul,
I thought that the object of the IWF is to make the mixing of H.323 terminals and SIP terminals transparent.
However, I could see supporting SIP: URLs in the H.323 URL field along
with
the H.323 URL. This would be possible under the URL rules for H.323v4. I would also expect SIP terminals to support the H.323 URL.
The does not solve the problem of true E.164 Ids or the TEL: URL. A true E.164 Id does not allow for a service prefix. In that this is the normal
Id
for voice calls, it must have a solution. An added problem is "Number Portability" which tends to kill number grouping.
I do not accept the concept of hidden usages of any field. Therefor I do not support the use of the H.323ID field having a special format that indicates a SIP connection. The H.323ID field should remain a free format string.
As it was stated, the gateway identifieds as having H.323 protocol is used by firewalls doing H.323-H.323. Also voice indicates any gateway support voice only connections. These should be mis-used. Adding a new protocol type for a gateway would have to wait.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:08 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
Charles,
I have discussed that idea with people before.
I'm certainly open to the idea of adding a "sip" codepoint. However,
since
H.323v4 was just approved, we'd have to wait for 2 years to get it in
there.
We might be able to persuade folks to use the "h323" field for IP GWs and document that in the H.323 Implementers Guide-- perhaps even changing the name in v5 to "ipgw".
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com