The examples about the secretary and her boss won't work with Chr*s because (i think), if the secretary and boss are both H.323 complaint then they should be able to register themselves (I disagree with this). This is only half the story. I'm also saying that I don't believe
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Purvis [mailto:chrisp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 1:24 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration Charles, third-party
registration is necessary to achieve this, and that the relevant intelligence should reside in the gatekeeper.
In the case of the IWF (s*p-h323) this is not true. No. In the case of the IWF I will send my setup message to the same entity that has been doing the registering. I'm not saying this won't work. I'm merely saying I don't understand why you consider this to be "third-party".
Sorry Chris, you are right. I was talking about H.323 complaince of all the parties considering the scenario with the IWF.
The real question for now is, what value will 3rd-party registration bring to an H.323 network. Once we have determined this, then we can proceed to agree on a good definition. True. My suggested way forward: Focus on what you're trying to achieve, then work out whether anything needs to be added to the standards to achieve it. THEN start thinking about how to achieve it, and what terms should be used to describe it!
Yes, I agree.
Regards, Chris
Regards, Charles -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
Folks, The ASN.1 definition for maximum and current call capacities in H.225.0v4 is as follows: CallCapacity ::= SEQUENCE { maximumCallCapacity CallCapacityInfo OPTIONAL, currentCallCapacity CallCapacityInfo OPTIONAL, ... } CallCapacityInfo ::= SEQUENCE { voiceGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h310GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h320GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h321GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h322GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h323GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h324GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, t120OnlyGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, t38FaxAnnexbOnlyGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, terminalCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, mcuCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, ... } CallsAvailable ::= SEQUENCE { calls INTEGER (0..4294967295), group IA5String (SIZE (1..128)) OPTIONAL, ... } What this means is that for a given group, to find out the current and max call capacities, we need to traverse two different lists (one for maximumCallCapacity and currentCallCapacity) and get the values. This increses the memory required in implementation and extra processsing. Instead I would like to propose that the maximum and current CallCapacity fields, with maximum being OPTIONAL inside the Callsavailable structure as follows: CallCapacity ::= SEQUENCE { voiceGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h310GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h320GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h321GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h322GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h323GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, h324GwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, t120OnlyGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, t38FaxAnnexbOnlyGwCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, terminalCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, mcuCallsAvailable SEQUENCE OF CallsAvailable OPTIONAL, ... } CallsAvailable ::= SEQUENCE { currentCallCapacity INTEGER (0..4294967295), maximumCallCapacity INTEGER (0..4294967295) OPTIONAL, group IA5String (SIZE (1..128)) OPTIONAL, ... } That way we need to traverse only one list to get both the maximum and current values. If there is no objection to this, I recommend this change to be made before the H225.0 v4 publication. Thanks. - Logan
participants (2)
-
Agboh, Charles -
Logan Modahala