Dear Mr. Clowes:

The "abstraction of routing" between the GKs is an option. Whether the "abstraction of this routing option" to be used through a chain of zones or not is left up to the implementation schemes.

If one does not feel the advantage of this option, then one may not use it.

I hope that this will clarify the things.

Regards,

Radhika R. Roy

PS When we see references in H.323 that a message is to be sent from one GK to another GK, it implies that the message has to be "routed" from one GK to another. (In another scenario, when in H.323 it is assumed that messages are to be sent between the GKs via "multicasting", it is also a kind of "routing" through a tree architecture that has a "chain of branches" where GKs are located.)

---

From: Douglas Clowes[SMTP:dclowes@OZEMAIL.COM.AU] Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 6:21 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Annex G

At 19:38 05/09/98 -0400, you wrote:

...

3.2 Routing

Like inter-zone, the communications between the domains also need the abstraction of routing to facilitate inter-GK communications since the inter-domain communication is nothing but the communications through a chain of zones.

It would appear to me that "the communications through a chain of zones" is prone to introducing problems.

Douglas

...

Hi Editor/SG16 Members:

A proposal on Annex G is enclosed. Your comments will be highly

appreciated.

...

<<m_G.doc>> Sincerely,

Radhika R. Roy AT&T Tel: + 1 732 949 8657 Email: rrroy@att.com

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\m_G.doc"