which walter mentioned is that the GK overwrites previous terminalAlias
(It
shoudn't since the terminal alias's are different while the transport
address remains the same).
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:38 AM
To: Wang, Dave; VPalawat@opuswave.com; Agboh, Charles;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: joon_maeng@vtel.com; hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com; Wong, Walter
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
I guess that you may be right.
Can we change the behavior like this: Can we not say that the IWF sends
all
aliases together each time it sends the RRQ?
It may be a crude method. What else could we do? The other solution may
be
to make GK and IWF collocated. We may not like to do this as well.
All members are requested to provide their comments as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wang, Dave [mailto:dwang@nuera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 3:33 AM
To: VPalawat@opuswave.com; Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO; Charles.Agboh@gts.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: joon_maeng@vtel.com; hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com; dwang@nuera.com;
Wong, Walter
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Here is some comments from my colleague Walter Wong, who is our expert
on
SIP/H.323 IWF. You may want to replace me by Walter in the e-mail list,
and
consider recruiting him in this work and drop me off it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wong, Walter
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 7:29 PM
To: Wang, Dave
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Hi Dave,
The registration scheme specified here for registering with
GK my not work. The IWF may not be able to send seperate RRQ
for each SIP end point. Here is the description from
H.225v3, section 7.9.1 on RRQ:
"terminalAlias -This optional value is a list of alias
addresses, by which other terminals may identify this
terminal. If the terminalAlias is null, or an E.164 address
is not present, an E.164 address may be assigned by the
gatekeeper, and included in the RCF. If an email-ID is
available for the endpoint, it should be registered. Note
that multiple alias addresses may refer to the same transport
addresses. All of the endpoint's aliases shall be included in
each RRQ."
The scheme seems to be violating the last sentense.
I've also done some experiment with the Cisco 3600 GK. If I
send RRQ with 8000001 then another RRQ with 8000002 from the
same GW, the GK loses the 8000001 as soon as the RRQ for
8000002 is received.
We have to find another way to get around this unless we can
change the GK behavior. Packing all individual endpoint
aliases in 1 RRQ is not a good solution because it's limited
by the size of the RRQ. I have not been successful in
finding a way to specify a range of aliases or use wildcard
in the RRQ. Although not flexible, statically configuring
the GK may be a workable solution.
-Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: VPalawat@opuswave.com [mailto:VPalawat@opuswave.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:33 PM
To: rrroy@att.com; VPalawat@opuswave.com; Charles.Agboh@gts.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: joon_maeng@vtel.com; hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com; dwang@nuera.com
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Hi All,
A quick update on the draft status:
* Last minute changes and some error corrections to Call Flow
diagrams.
* More additions to other sections are under progress.
* Draft formatting is under progress.
Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions on my
approach/opinion.
Best Regards
Vipin
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 10:53 AM
To: VPalawat@opuswave.com; Charles.Agboh@gts.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: joon_maeng@vtel.com; hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com; dwang@nuera.com
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
<< File: Registration_v3.txt >> << File:
Requirements.txt
Hi, Vipin and All:
I am enclosing two files for the following two sections:
1. Registration and Address Resolution (Version 3)
2. SIP-H.323 Interworking Requirements
For address resolution, I have an issue as follows:
Does the IWF will send the response (200 OK) to
the SIP EP
after receiving
the REGISTER message because we do not assume
that IWF may
act as the
register server?
Based on comments provided earlier, I have
modified the last
flow diagram
assuming that the IWF and the H.323 GK are NOT
co-located.
Still, I have
been able to use the OPTIONS message to resolve the
H.323-side addresses.
However, I have not been able to use the
OPTIONS message for
resolving the
SIP-side addresses if the ARQ/LRQ messages come from the
H.323-side unless
IWF and GK are co-located.
Can anyone help to find examples for this
scenario using the
OPTIONS
message?
The OPTIONS message is an extremely useful one and H.323
does NOT have any
equivalent one. (It silently provides all the
capabilities
of the SIP
entities without going through needless
negotiations like
H.245 messages.)
I am yet to show all fields of all messages in
the message
flows. Hope to
refine those later.
For the SIP-H.323 Interworking Requirements
section, I also
like to have
your comments.
Best regards,
Radhika
PS: I have apprised the ITU-T SG16 Q.13/16
meeting delegates
about the
progress of our SIP-H.323 Interworking works in
the IETF.
-----Original Message-----
From: VPalawat@opuswave.com
[mailto:VPalawat@opuswave.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:45 PM
To: VPalawat@opuswave.com; Charles.Agboh@gts.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: joon_maeng@vtel.com; hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com;
dwang@nuera.com;
Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
Hi All,
Here is a quick update on the status of the draft.
* Detailed description of calls along
with message
details in call
flow diagrams is complete.
* Basic message handling Section is
nearly complete.
Following sections are still under progress:
* State m/c diagram. Lot of work is there.
I would like to have your opinion on the state
of the draft.
I also want to know that if in case we were unable to
complete the state m/c
on time, then
Can we include it in the "TO DO" list and later
we will add
it into the next
release of the same draft.
This is because I don't want to put everything
in a rush.
This will impact
the quality of the document.
We have already written the draft in a short
time, so I feel
if we were
unable to complete that section,
Then it is better to put it in the "TO DO" list
and better
concentrate on
the review of the existing stuff.
I would like to have your opinions on this.
Please let me know if you have any
comments/suggestions on
my
approach/opinion.
Best Regards
Vipin
-----Original Message-----
From: Palawat, Vipin
Sent: Thursday, November 09,
2000 10:02 AM
To: 'Agboh, Charles'; 'Kundan Singh'
Cc: Palawat, Vipin;
joon_maeng@vtel.com;
hemantag@globespan.net; schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu;
alan.johnston@wcom.com;
dwang@nuera.com; rrroy@att.com
Subject: Draft Status Update
Hi All,
Here is a quick update on the
status of the
draft.
Following section were almost complete:
* Detailed description and call message details in
call flow diagrams.
Following sections are
still under
progress:
* Basic Call Handling.
* State m/c
Please let me know if you have any
comments/suggestions on
my approach/opinion.
Best Regards
Vipin
-----Original
Message-----
From: Agboh, Charles
[mailto:Charles.Agboh@gts.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, November
08, 2000 3:05 PM
To: 'Kundan Singh'
Cc:
'VPalawat@opuswave.com';
ddaiker@cisco.com; joon_maeng@vtel.com;
hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; alan.johnston@wcom.com;
dwang@nuera.com;
rrroy@att.com
Subject:
RE: Message
Mapping:
SIP-H.323 interworking
Hi,
Can we keep Dave
(ddaiker@cisco.com) in the
discussion.
regards
charles
-----Original
Message-----
From: Kundan Singh
[mailto:kns10@cs.columbia.edu]
Sent:
Wednesday, November
08, 2000 6:57 PM
To: Agboh, Charles
Cc:
'VPalawat@opuswave.com';
ddaiker@cisco.com; joon_maeng@vtel.com;
hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu;
alan.johnston@wcom.com;
dwang@nuera.com;
rrroy@att.com
Subject: RE: Message
Mapping: SIP-H.323
interworking
Are we going
to constrain
an
implementation to an algorithm for matching
SDP
capability
description ang
H.245? I think
we should leave it open and say
that there must be at
least an
intersection and that intersection must
include G.711.
I agree that it
should be
open, however, we
can provide a
guideline for
finding such
intersection with
examples.
Secondly,
"intersection must
include G.711"
is not
acceptable, I think,
especially if the SIP
side
does not
support G.711 and
the IWF provider
is capable of doing
conversion between
G.711 (from
H.323 EP) and
some other codec
(from SIP UA).
Having G.711 always
mandatory will
eventually cause the
SIP calls
(without G.711) to
be always
rejected.
H.225.0/Q.931
part (not
UUIE):
I think, we can
ignore the
unnecessary
fields in
this phase and
can look at
it in the next
phase, if needed.
Some of the fields (like
Caller Number) can
be used
in IWF.
Will send more comments
soon.
Thanks and regards
Kundan
Can we get perspective
from vendors on
this (ie. bearer cap..)
vipin, how do
you want to
proceed?
regards,
charles
-----Original
Message-----
From:
VPalawat@opuswave.com
[mailto:VPalawat@opuswave.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, November
08, 2000 5:45 PM
To: Agboh, Charles;
ddaiker@cisco.com
Cc:
joon_maeng@vtel.com;
hemantag@globespan.net;
rrroy@att.com;
VPalawat@opuswave.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: Message
Mapping: SIP-H.323
interworking
Hi All,
A quick update on the
status of the
current draft.
* Work in
still going
on in the
following sections.
*
Description of Call
Flow diagrams.
* State m/c
* Basic Message
Handling.
As soon as
to all the editors.
I will keep
on updating
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu;
alan.johnston@wcom.com; dwang@nuera.com;
the draft comes
to a complete
and good shape, I will forward it
the status twice a
day.
Please let me
know if you
have any
comments/suggestions on my
approach/opinion.
Best Regards
Vipin
-----Original Message-----
From:
Agboh, Charles
[mailto:Charles.Agboh@gts.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November
07, 2000 11:19 AM
To:
'David Daiker'
Cc:
Agboh, Charles;
joon_maeng@vtel.com;
hemantag@globespan.net;
schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu;
alan.johnston@wcom.com;
dwang@nuera.com;
rrroy@att.com;
VPalawat@opuswave.com;
kns10@cs.columbia.edu
Subject:
RE: Message
Mapping: SIP-H.323 interworking
Hi David,
I will open
the discussion
tomorrow with my contribution
which is mostly
derived from
Kundan Singh's
work (Its going to be a long
night). I think
it will be
difficult to come
up with something consistent
before the 16th
but, we will
try.
We welcome
your
participation in this discussion.
Best
regards,
charles,
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Daiker
[mailto:ddaiker@cisco.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 07,
2000 4:50 PM
To: Agboh,
Charles
Cc: David
Daiker
Subject: Re:
Message
Mapping: SIP-H.323 interworking
Hi Charles,
mapping
Sorry for
the late response,
I am just starting to look at
headers/parms/ies
between sip/isup/h323.
And quite
honestly, other
than the obvious (calling, called,
bearer cap,
timestamps)
I don't have
anything specific in mind.
Though I
will certainly
provide Cisco's perspective and
participate
in any
discussions.
thanks,
david