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 there.
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 then true format protocol 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
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 then true format protocol 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
participants (2)
-
Callaghan, Robert
-
Paul E. Jones