hi all, perhaps we can procede as we planned with H.323v2 and add H.323v3 features as an extension package of some sort. regards, charles -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 4:43 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: FW: [sip-h323] SIP-H.323 interworking Requirements Draft FYI -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 10:41 PM To: 'sip-h323@egroups.com'; sip-h323@egroups.com Subject: RE: [sip-h323] SIP-H.323 interworking Requirements Draft Hi, Henning: I agree with you (please also see my response provided below). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy -----Original Message----- From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:12 PM To: sip-h323@egroups.com Subject: Re: [sip-h323] SIP-H.323 interworking Requirements Draft "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" wrote:

Hi, Everyone:

I have just returned from the ITU-T SG16 Q.13 (H.323) meeting where our SIP-H.323 Interworking requirement draft was also discussed.

The Q.13 members have strongly recommended that we should consider H.323 version 3 (instead of version 2) for our SIP-H.323 interworking work.

What practical difference does it make? Could you summarize the relevant differences? Presumably, a v3 terminal is going to interoperate with v2 terminals. For the next year, at the very least, the only real implementation to worry about is NetMeeting (v2, I assume). -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 10:32 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO; sip-h323@egroups.com Subject: RE: [sip-h323] SIP-H.323 interworking Requirements Draft Hi, Everyone: Here is my view as stated below: It is very difficult to find any vendor to support H.323 version 3. Many companies are now testing vendor implementations of H.323 version 2, and it is also reported that multivendor interoperability at the version 2 level is still problematic. In many cases, no promise has been obtained from the major vendors when they will support version 3. It may be very nice to have SIP/H.323 v3 interworking, but we think SIP/H.323 v2 interworking should come first. Considering all factors, I think that we should keep our first interworking requirements to support H.323 version 2 as defined in the present draft (while we may consider for H.323 version 3 in the future). So, I recommend that we should make any changes in the present draft. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +11 732 420 1580 -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 10:32 PM To: sip-h323@egroups.com Subject: [sip-h323] SIP-H.323 interworking Requirements Draft Hi, Everyone: I have just returned from the ITU-T SG16 Q.13 (H.323) meeting where our SIP-H.323 Interworking requirement draft was also discussed. The Q.13 members have strongly recommended that we should consider H.323 version 3 (instead of version 2) for our SIP-H.323 interworking work. We would appreciate if you would kindly provide your comments on the point. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy@att.com To Post a message, send it to: sip-h323@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: sip-h323-unsubscribe@eGroups.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