Mister Martinez, I apologize for having let the impression of using your name as well as your work as well as the "Mobility AD-HOC group" source for my comment on your contribution. This was not in my mind a contribution but just a clarification on 3GPP view about multimedia mobility. I understand you felt that my mail was incorrect (not respecting your work nor the rules of working within your group). This was not at all my intention and I ask you to forgive me.
To the group, I apologize for having brought some mess in your discussions.
My intent was just to ask for a clarification in contribution MTD-05.
The first figure of contribution MTD-05 is exactly option 1 of 3GPP 23.922. My question is on the two following figures: are they aiming at representing 3GPP's view or Motorola's view or the current view of your group? My intrusion into your debate was just to try to clarify that the 2 last figures do not exactly represent 3GPP view. If I have inserted description of MSC and GMSC servers, it is because an option 2 is refered to in MTD-05 and I (may be wrongly) understood that it was 3GPP architectural option 2 that was refered to in the second figure of MTD-05 (3GPP architecture option 2 aims at allowing the "All IP" network to interface Circuit Switched terminals and uses MSC and GMSC servers for that purpose).
To come to the only intersting question that is the question on the ground, my comment is that we should try to separate the access layer (GPRS, CDMA, ...) from the call control layer (H323, GK, ...) to allow each evolving on its own pace and to have clear separation between the standardization bodies that work on radio access and on multimedia architecture.
I have sent e_mail comment because I have been only aware very recently that you have this week an audio-conference and I thought it was too late to send written contributions. If it is not too late, I would need - 2 contribution numbers (One MTD-08 has already been given to me by Mr. Reddy, which I thankvery much for his explanations, but I need another number). - explanations on how to praticipate to the conference call (number to call...)
Finally, I apologize again (and I ask especially Mr. Martinez to forgive me) if I have introduced some mess in your discussions.
Best regards Laurent T. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645 A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Alcatel Reaction on H.323m contributions Author: martinze@CIG.MOT.COM Date: 15/11/99 21:01
Dear MR. Thiebaut,
The document you just send out has my name on the contact list. Which you edited without my consent. You should respect everyone's work and next time you change any contribution you put your name and use a different MTD. The original MTD-05 is in.
ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming
Also the contribution source is "Mobility Ad-hoc group"??? I am part of the "Mobility AD-HOC group" and again neither myself or anyone representing Motorola or myself gave MR. Thiebaut permission or concur the use of the "Mobility Ad-hoc group" as the source.
I hope you do not represent how things are done in 3GPP.
MR. Thiebaut, on your blindness attempt to re-used my work to promote your own views. Let me warn you, the document was put in informational only. I send out email that we should restrain from comments until we went over all the contributions first in the conference call meeting.
To ALL,
The Edited MTD-05 in this email is not from Motorola please contact MR. Laurent Thiebaut LAURENT.THIEBAUT@ALCATEL.FR with your comments. I would not even bother to use the SG16 mailer to do so.
see below for further comments:
Laurent Thiebaut wrote:
Hello everybody, I have just subscribe to itu-sg16. I'm mostly interested in H.323 link with radio access, being involved in 3GPP standardization (3GPP S2 working group responsible of network architecture) Please find attached some comments on Contribution "Integrating 3GPP's option-1 architecture into the H.323 wireless IP mobility system and a full migration from GPRS to a Multimedia IP network proposal" (file MTD-05) - source Motorola - to be discussed on wednesday about H323 mobility. - comment on section "Alternate Proposal for an all IP option for 3GPP R'00. The purpose the all IP proposal is also to allow support of release 99 CS domain terminals. In addition it will also support the IP based services of option 1." The figure shown in the contribution does **NOT** correspond to the support of the CS terminals as described in 3GPP 23.922. This option 2 of the 3GPP standard corresponds to the option 1 architecture plus -- a MSC server mainly that comprises the call control and mobility control parts of a GSM/UMTS R99 MSC. MSC server controls the parts of the call state that pertain to connection control for media channels in a MGW. -- A GMSC server that mainly comprises the call control and mobility control parts of a GSM/UMTS R99 GMSC. The attached MTD05comment.zip contains extracts from 3GPP23.922 that explain the 3GPP position on network architecture.
The following is clearly stated in the document:
For simplicity, only the 3GPP interfaces relevant to H.323 interfaces are shown for discussion.
If one wants to compare, please See 3G TR 23.922 version 1.0.0[6] for full details of option 1.
The following further discrepancies between contribution MTD05 and 3GPP specifications are: -- The network architecture defined by 3GPP does *NOT* imply to have the GK and the SGSN function mixed, -- nor has 3GPP accepted to merge the GGSN and the MG functions -- nor has 3GPP accepted to have a Gi interface between UTRAN (radio) and GGSN (Gateway to Packet Data networks such as Intranets / ISPs). Merging of functions is always possible at the implementation level but should not be dictated by standardization when not necessary. As H.323 networks may have to interact with other non 3GPP radio (and even mobile, non terrestrial radio) networks, it is better to have, as 3GPP has done, a clear separation between (radio) access bearer layer - UTRAN, ERAN, SGSN, GGSN for 3GPP networks, PDSN for CDMA2000 networks - and multimedia call control layer e.g. GK.
What I am talking about is "Full migration from GPRS to Multimedia IP network". Not a decompose MSC or GMSC the so-called Circuit Switched Trunk Gateway WGW (aka switch) and MSC server (aka SCP) your so-called all IP concepts.
Finally in a full IP network the only separation that will exist is Circuit Switched networks (Old) and IP based networks (New). The bridge between the Old and New, will be the Signaling gateways and media gateways.
Conclusion: ---------------- The H.323 mobility group should also consider the interworking of the GPRS network and provide a GPRS migration path to a full IP network solution. Such as the work in H.323 is providing an interworking and migration path for the PSTN to a full IP network solution. In addition the H.323 mobility group could include the two options "Alternate Proposal for an all IP option for 3GPP R'00" interim solution, and the Full migration from GPRS into H.323 Annex-H interworking sections. Further details can be discussed within the H.323 mobility group.
Best regards Laurent T.
V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr
(Alcatel representant to 3GPP SA Working group 2 that is responsible of 3GPP system architecture)
Name: mtd-05~1.zipmtd-05~1.zip Type: Winzip32 File (application/x-winzip) Encoding: base64
-- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/