Kindly see a reply addressed to Mr. G. Freundlich's email. Regards, Radhika R. Roy

---------- From: Kumar, Vineet[SMTP:vineet.kumar@INTEL.COM] Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 12:47 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call

My comments are embedded in the email below.

vineet

...

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC [SMTP:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:24 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call

Hi Everyone:

I have few comments on the revised Annex G writeup.

1. The title is OK 2. The scope is not OK. As we talked last time that the scope should be extended to include the following: * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications Between (Administrative) Domains [Kumar, Vineet] The scope was decided at the Yokosuka meeting and further confirmed at he Cannes meeting. Most participants are comfortable with it. It seems that you are the only one who wants to change the scope. For companies that are implementing this Annex there is an urgent need to move ahead and complete the work within the scope agreed at the previous rapporteur meetings. One compromise might be to create an additional Annex whose scope is Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain. I believe that this compromise takes into account your point of view on the scope and should be acceptable to you. 3. APC-1385 provides outlines for the "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain". The write-up of Annex G should be modified accordingly. [Kumar, Vineet] The specific diagrams in APC-1385 have been modelled in the figures of Annex G. Additionally, there has been no specific examples of protocol limitations from Annex G/APC-1422 that would disallow deployment of models described in APC-1385 4. The items 2 and 3 had been discussed in the last conference call. Are we going through a circle again? [Kumar, Vineet] Most of the participants do not agree with you on items 2 and 3. So, in the interest of moving ahead the compromise I have suggested in item 2 should be acceptable to you. 5. The comments on the remaining text of the document will be reviewed when the fundamental direction of Annex G is put along the line as pointed out above. [Kumar, Vineet] Comments should be reviewed based on the Editor and Group consensus, and not on the wishes of a specific individual.

...

Recent AT&T's proposed contribution has also been submitted to complement the write-up in the area of "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain".

Thanks and regards,

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

...

---------- From: Glen Freundlich[SMTP:ggf@lucent.com] Reply To: ggf@lucent.com Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 3:11 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.225.0 Annex G conference call

<<File: diff0201.zip>> There will be another conference call to discuss H.225.0 Annex G: date: 20 August (Thursday) time: 10:00am Mountain Time (9:00 Pacific, 12:00 Eastern, etc) bridge number: +1 630-224-4444 code: 911202 duration: 1 hour

Tentative agenda: - next call 27 August - review of Santo Wiryaman's proposal - review of Pete Cordell's proposal - review of Radhika Roy's proposal

Notes from last call: Most of the call was spent discussing an email from Radhika Roy. Some of the significant points are:

- The Annex G title (Communication Between Administrative Domains) was viewed as too restrictive. According to the Yokosuka meeting report, Annex G is to focus on communication between administrative domains. While some folks seem to believe that the currently proposed protocol is suitable for both inter-gatekeeper communication and communication between administrative domains, others seem to believe that these are 2 distinct problems.

- Annex G should address inter-gatekeeper communication and communication between administrative domains separately.

- The current direction of work does not seem to consider all possible architectures (hierarchical, distributed, hybrid), or at least the current Annex G does not adequately describe all possible architectures. In addition, no requirements appear to guide forming Annex G for each of these possible architectures.

Mr. Roy has promised a proposal to address some of his concerns.

Remember that this work will progress with proposals.

For those who were on the last call, please correct me if I've missed something.

Glen

-- Glen Freundlich ggf@lucent.com Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907 Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA