Re: H.323 Annex O

1 Jun 2000

      Hi, Christian:
I am glad that you have described what exactly I wanted to say. I completely
agree with you.
All emails were sent to get the point across that you have just described.
Hope that every member will also agree with your clarification.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [SMTP:Christian.Groves@ERICSSON.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 8:21 PM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: H.323 Annex O
Hello Roy,
I abit confused at all these emails flying around about the H.246
SIP-H.323 Appendix. There are alot of could's and would's in the Sg16
meeting report and I believe the underlying sentiment was that we would
let the IETF continue with their work and monitor it. At a later stage
we could reference this work in an informational Appendix.
I agree on your desire to have one document describing the Interworking.
I hope that interested parties contribute to the work done in the IETF
rather than starting competing work in SG16 at this stage.
Regards, Christian
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
...
Hi, Glen:
It is nice to know that an H.246 SIP-H.323 Interworking APPENDIX will be
created.
Per earlier emails, it appears that this APPENDIX will be informational
one.
...
With respect to presenting the contributions, I tried to bring
contributions
...
including authors of the Internet Drafts for the SIP-H.323 Interworking
in
...
the last SG16 meeting held in Geneva on February 2000. However, the US
Dept
...
of State did not accept the contributions of the organizations (e.g.,
Universities) and companies who were not the members of the ITU-T SG16
(either independently or jointly with other companies who are the
members of
...
the ITU-T).
However, in IETF, it has not been the case. That is why, the authors of
those internet drafts are working to create an Informational RFC.
Now it appears that the SG16 will also be creating an informational
APPENDIX.
It appears that the IETF's Informational RFC will be produced first.
Let us keep our eyes open how we can create a unified informational
standard
...
cooperating in both standard organizations. Some suggestions have been
made
...
in the earlier emails.
Our objectives should be to create one single standard for the same
thing.
...
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Freundlich [SMTP:ggf@LUCENT.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:34 PM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: H.323 Annex O
While it is true that work is progressed through written contributions
to
...
...
study
group and rapporteurs' meetings, those written contributions can be
created
jointly via email, conference calls, over a plate of bull fries at
Bruce's
...
...
Bar,
etc. Note that joint creation of a contribution does not guarantee its
approval
(although probability of approval certainly increases when a larger
group
...
...
of
people are involved in the creation of a proposal).
In the case of a jointly created contribution, it seems reasonable
that
...
...
someone
from that group would be able to present the contribution at a
meeting. If
...
...
someone has a contribution they would like to present at a meeting,
but is
...
...
unable
to attend, it's certainly possible to ask someone who plans to attend
the
...
...
meeting
to present the material.
As for the SIP-H.323 interworking annex, check the meeting report:
"Call signaling could be captured in an appendix to H.246. This
appendix
...
...
would
first address simple audio interworking, covering topics such as
mapping
...
...
messages
between H.323 and SIP. This is work that is currently in progress in
the
...
...
IETF
(not an official work item at this time, but an unofficial task in the
SIP
...
...
working group). This appendix would define the "preferred interworking
mode" of
H.323; we'd expect the SIP experts to define the preferred
interworking
...
...
mode of
SIP. We need to capture the essence of each of the functional
entities.
...
...
Contributions are requested."
SIP-H.323 interworking would be described in an appendix to H.246 (not
H.323
Annex O). This would describe the "preferred interworking mode", which
would
specify, for example, the use of H.323 fast start. It might describe
the
...
...
relationship between the functional entities (e.g., is the SIP-H.323
interworking
function in a gateway or gatekeeper for the H.323 side, and in a SIP
proxy
...
...
for
the SIP side?). It would describe message mapping (e.g., the H.323
Setup
...
...
message
maps to a SIP Invite message, and the called party number IE is mapped
to
...
...
the To
header).
Glen
Chip Sharp wrote:
...
At 09:59 AM 5/30/00 -0400, Roy, Radhika R, ALARC wrote:
...snip...
...
There are also no mechanisms in the ITU-T SG16 to accept the
contributions
...
...
for the companies that can afford to communicate via emails only. I
guess
...
...
that the best way is to have the RFC from the IETF that will have
all
...
...
inputs
...
...
from all companies that invented the interworking solution. The
SG16
...
...
can
...
...
then have the RFC for their use to make a formal standard (with
more
...
...
...
...
additions if needed).
It is true that SG16 still operates mainly on the basis of written
contributions to meetings and not on mail lists like IETF WG.  It is
also
...
true that non-ITU members have a hard time participating in ITU SG
work.  Even if a company is an ITU member, attending all the
meetings
...
...
...
around the world is a travel burden on small companies (even big
companies). However, an IETF WG can submit a written contribution to
SG16
...
via existing mechanisms. Usually, this is initiated via consensus of
the
...
...
WG
...
and/or by WG chair via the ISOC VP - Standards.  Of course, it
requires
...
...
...
someone to represent that contribution at the SG16 meetings.  The
SG16
...
...
...
Rapporteurs have been very open in the past to inviting non-ITU
member
...
...
...
experts to Rapporteur Meetings to further the work.  The SG16 mail
list
...
...
has
...
been one of the more active SG mail lists in actually discussing
technical
...
issues.  And SG16's working documents are available for review as
well
...
...
(at
...
least from Rapporteur's Meetings).  It will be nice if ITU could
codify
...
...
...
some of these examples at WTSA.
I understand the desire to do the work in one place.  It is also
true
...
...
that
...
SG16 can reference an IETF RFC in its recommendations.  However, if
it
...
...
is
...
an informational RFC, it can't be a normative reference in ITU.
...snip...
...
If you think that any improvements need to be done in the solutions
proposed
...
...
in the contributions of the IETF (please see the references
provided in
...
...
my
...
...
email), please submit the proposal in the IETF. We can then use the
Informational RFC as an input for a formal standard in the SG16. In
this
...
...
way, we can get the best the both worlds having a "single common
standard
...
...
for SIP-H.323 Interworking".
Remember an ITU Recommendation cannot make a normative reference to
an
...
...
...
Informational RFC.
If there is no new protocol work being done, the H.323-SIP
interworking
...
...
...
could conceivably become a BCP (Best Current Practice) some day.
...
The key is that the SG16 cannot use the interworking solution that
has
...
...
been
...
...
"invented" by the other companies or institutions without their
consent
...
...
and
...
...
participation. I personally feel very strongly that the SG16 cannot
not
...
...
...
...
"invent" a NEW interworking solution of its own that will NOT
include
...
...
the
...
...
solutions proposed by others in the IETF.
The ITU can incorporate by (normative or non-normative) reference to
any
...
...
...
RFC.  The IETF has an IPR policy that isn't too different from ITU
(I
...
...
don't
...
think).  Current A.5 procedures require that IETF provide a written
agreement to allow normative references to an RFC (I don't remember
ever
...
...
...
seeing one of these, but there may be a blanket agreement).  There
are
...
...
...
proposals to drop this requirement in the next version of A.5.
Any IPR contained in IETF RFCs are covered by IETF IPR policy.  It
is
...
...
true
...
that a company that has declared IPR in an IETF RFC may not know it
is
...
...
...
being referenced in ITU and therefore may not submit an IPR
statement to
...
...
...
ITU.  Therefore the IPR would only be covered by the IETF IPR
statement
...
...
...
(this brings up interesting legal questions, but I'll leave that up
to
...
...
the
...
lawyers.).  This should only be a real problem if the invention were
included in the ITU Recommendation by some means other than
reference.
...
...
...
So the bottom line is that there are mechanisms to share work in ITU
and
...
...
...
IETF even without all the formal mechanisms worked out between
Megaco
...
...
and
...
Q.14.  However, if the work is going to be cooperative, such an
agreement
...
is probably desirable.
Good Luck!
Chip

Chip Sharp                 CTO Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
http://www.netaid.org

> > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > > listserv@mailbag.intel.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
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > listserv@mailbag.intel.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv@mailbag.intel.com

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv@mailbag.intel.com