Re: [H.323Mobility:]

23 Feb 2000


      Hi Radhika et al,
There seems to be a subdirectory in the pictel-site for mobility. The URL
is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Mobility-adhoc/ . I suggest that we
will put our contributions there. It would be nice to have some naming
convention (such as the MTD-xxx scheme) for the documents. Maybe Paul should
assign these numbers as he is now the moderator for the teleconferences...
- Jaakko Sundquist
-----Original Message-----
                From:   EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
                Sent:   Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:34 PM
                To:     ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
                Subject:        Re: [H.323Mobility:]
Hi, Jaakko:
I agree with your reply that was also reflected in my
earlier email.
I have a question to you and Paul Guram: Have you guys
decided where the
                incoming contributions for the Ad Hoc group to be sent and
where the URL
                would be for accessing to that website? If it is so, please
let all of us
                know soon.
Paul Guram: Are you close to decide the meeting date and
time as well?
Best regards,
                Radhika R. Roy
> -----Original Message-----
                > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
                > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:37 AM
                > To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
                > Subject:      [H.323Mobility:]
                >
                > Hi all,
                >
                > I'm sending here the documents related to H.323 Annex H
that were
                > accomplished in the Geneva meeting by the ad hoc mobility
group. Included
                > are the draft Annex H, the Terms of Reference for it as
well as the
                > meeting
                > minutes (quite short) of the ad hoc group meetings in
Geneva.
                >
                > As Mr. Tran pointed out the location area had been left to
the VLF-section
                > of the draft annex. This is my mistake and I apologize for
any confusion
                > it
                > has created. I did not, however, take it off from the
document I am
                > sending
                > here, this is the document that was produced as a TD in
Geneva, but I will
                > remove the location area from the subsequent versions of
the draft annex.
                > As for the TMSI, etc. concepts, in my view it is quite
unnecessary to
                > argue
                > about these, the TMSI is already included in the proposed
new alias
                > address
                > type: UIM. Many of these concepts are, as I understand,
already needed in
                > H.246 Annex E, which addresses one scenario of the
mobility problem. I
                > would
                > see the VLR functionality of the H.246 Annex E IWF as
really the VLF we
                > have
                > defined as a new mobility functional entity, thus the
identifiers TMSI,
                > etc.
                > would be needed in the VLF at least in some cases.
However, it might be
                > suitable to indicate that all of the identifiers mentioned
in the VLF (and
                > other) section(s) are not mandatory.
                >
                >  <<GenevaMobility.zip>>
                >
                > - Jaakko Sundquist
                > -------------------------------------------------------
                >      In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
                >  Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of
                >      worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare,
                > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat:
                >      it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.
                > ------------------------------------------------------- <<
File:
                > GenevaMobility.zip >>