I inadvertently sent an incomplete version of this e-mail to the itu-sg16 mailing list, for that, I appologize.
Paul, Bob;
The SIP-H.323 gateway will be a gateway with multimedia capabilities. The focus now will be on voice and video. It is possible that other IP Telephony signaling protocols may be invented in the future and these may ask for codepoints in H.323. "ipgw" may be a way to provide a codepoint for the class of IP Telephony protocols. I am wondering what sort of information should be conveyed in such a structure (apart from the obvious): ipgw = seqence of { -protocol id ('sip', 'bicc',...) of type text string -.... }.
Concering the current verison of the SIP-H.323 gw I(we) agree that "h323" should be used for now.
Regards,
charles -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:30 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
Bob,
I suppose it could, though I have not heard anybody focusing on multimedia in SIP. There are certainly a lot of missing pieces on that side for doing that. They could do audio and video at the very least.
The folks I have heard from have been asking for a codepoint to advertise that the gateway is an H.323 to SIP gateway. The question is simply how to signal that? There's plenty of options, but we should select the one that makes the most sense.
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: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:49 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Paul,
Actually a gateway should advertise "voice" if it only support voice. Advertising "h323" means that the full multimedia suite of H.323 is supported. What is the intent of the H.323 to SIP gateway? Will it interwork the full multimedia suite?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:33 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
Bob,
The very fact that SIP is sitting on the back side of this H.323 device
was
one reason I never pursued trying to add a "sip" codepoint, per se.
Adding
"sip" as a codepoint might suggest that the SIP devices are doing RAS and
I
know that would send shivers through the SIP community :-)
Perhaps the right approach is to say that "h323" is the right choice and
we
should clarify in H.225.0 that this codepoint is used to indicate an H.323 GW that reaches other IP-based protocols.
I think we need to say something, because this issue comes up from time to time. People want to feel comfortable that when they register a gateway
and
provide SIP interworking that they advertise the right protocol to the GK. I don't see any reason why the GK should care whether the GW is actually using SIP, BICC, or H.323 on the back side.
Is there a technical reason why should or should not allow "h323" to be
used
as I suggest above? I think we're in agreement that this does, indeed,
act
like nothing more than an H.323 firewall and if it advertises the ability
to
reach the desired destination-- I suppose that's all we need to care
about.
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: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:37 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Paul,
Based on the rule that the SIP-H.323 gateway appears to the endpoints as
an
H.323 firewall, then this will work. If there ever is any difference,
then
there is a problem
I prefer to keep the "h323" designation.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:33 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
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
Charles,
I see us going in one of two directions: 1) Overloading the "h323" field to really be "ipgw", which can reach any protocol 2) Adding new code points for each protocol (one for SIP, one for BICC, etc.)
I don't think it's really necessary to create some type of structure that then contains values inside. SupportedProtocols is a CHOICE type, so adding new choices is not expensive in terms of processing or encoding. Also, I suspect we will not be extending this list very many times. SIP and BICC are the only two candidates that I expect we'll be considering in the next few years. It will be small, in any case.
What I think you should do is submit a contribution to the next meeting (March 5-9) with the proposal for adding this new field. If you can't attend the meeting, I'll be happy to present the document for you.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Agboh, Charles" Charles.Agboh@gts.com To: "'Paul E. Jones'" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Cc: sip-h323@egroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
I inadvertently sent an incomplete version of this e-mail to the itu-sg16 mailing list, for that, I appologize.
Paul, Bob;
The SIP-H.323 gateway will be a gateway with multimedia capabilities.
The
focus now will be on voice and video. It is possible that other IP Telephony signaling protocols may be invented in the future and these may ask for codepoints in H.323. "ipgw" may be a way to provide a codepoint
for
the class of IP Telephony protocols. I am wondering what sort of information should be conveyed in such a structure (apart from the
obvious):
ipgw = seqence of { -protocol id ('sip', 'bicc',...) of type text string -.... }.
Concering the current verison of the SIP-H.323 gw I(we) agree that "h323" should be used for now.
Regards,
charles -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:30 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
Bob,
I suppose it could, though I have not heard anybody focusing on multimedia in SIP. There are certainly a lot of missing pieces on that side for
doing
that. They could do audio and video at the very least.
The folks I have heard from have been asking for a codepoint to advertise that the gateway is an H.323 to SIP gateway. The question is simply how
to
signal that? There's plenty of options, but we should select the one that makes the most sense.
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: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:49 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Paul,
Actually a gateway should advertise "voice" if it only support voice. Advertising "h323" means that the full multimedia suite of H.323 is supported. What is the intent of the H.323 to SIP gateway? Will it interwork the full multimedia suite?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:33 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
Bob,
The very fact that SIP is sitting on the back side of this H.323 device
was
one reason I never pursued trying to add a "sip" codepoint, per se.
Adding
"sip" as a codepoint might suggest that the SIP devices are doing RAS
and
I
know that would send shivers through the SIP community :-)
Perhaps the right approach is to say that "h323" is the right choice and
we
should clarify in H.225.0 that this codepoint is used to indicate an
H.323
GW that reaches other IP-based protocols.
I think we need to say something, because this issue comes up from time
to
time. People want to feel comfortable that when they register a gateway
and
provide SIP interworking that they advertise the right protocol to the
GK.
I don't see any reason why the GK should care whether the GW is actually using SIP, BICC, or H.323 on the back side.
Is there a technical reason why should or should not allow "h323" to be
used
as I suggest above? I think we're in agreement that this does, indeed,
act
like nothing more than an H.323 firewall and if it advertises the
ability
to
reach the desired destination-- I suppose that's all we need to care
about.
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: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:37 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Paul,
Based on the rule that the SIP-H.323 gateway appears to the endpoints
as
an
H.323 firewall, then this will work. If there ever is any difference,
then
there is a problem
I prefer to keep the "h323" designation.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:33 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
participants (2)
-
Agboh, Charles -
Paul E. Jones