Hi, Nicolas and Jaakko:

We agreed that the "location area" will not be included. So, any reference to the location area shall be removed.

With repsect to TMSI, LMTI, MSRN, I guess, both Lucent's and AT&T's (+ Motorola's in Red Bank) contributions have proposed new aliases. For example, H.323 uses alias like E.164, name, URL, email, network addresses (e.g., IP, ATM) etc. Similarly, the aliases like TMSI, LMSI, MSRN, and others can also be used.

Please note that aliases are the abstraction in the H.323 layer. In H.246 Annex E, we have also seen why UMI needs to be added as another alias in H.323. From that point of view, we do not see any problems.

We also like to see comments of other members on this topic.

However, we like to see whether this abstraction of TMSI, LMTI, and MSRN in the H.323 layer causes any problems in the radio link layer. If it is so, we will definitely consider NOT to use those aliases in H.323.

Nicholas - Is it possible to justify how the abstraction of TMSI, LMTI, and MSRN is cusing a problem in the radio link layer? May be a contribution will be helpful to explain this. We feel that it will rather be helpful as we have seen in the case of H.246 Annex E.

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy

-----Original Message----- From: Nicolas Tran [SMTP:Nicolas.Tran@ALCATEL.FR] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:38 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: [H.323 Annex H Mobility] Clarification Request

Hi Jaakko, I took a little bit of time to go through the TD 2-129 "H.323 Annex Mobility", and I have the following comments about the section 6.2.2 "Visitor Location Function (VLF)" I am astonished to see that the Location Area is listed as one of the elements of the VLF database because it had been agreed while discussing the Alcatel contribution that the Location Area is NOT a concept to be handled by H323 mobility. although the whole text proposed by the Alcatel contribution has not been accepted, the principles of this contribution (that proposes the independance between the lower layer and H.323 Multimedia system) has been agreed .Hence the Visitor Location Function (VLF) section should not contain elements such as TMSI, LMTI, MSRN corresponding to the radio concept.

Perhaps, would it be suitable, as requested to Alcatel for the registration section of his contribution, to provide message sequence charts explaining why the VLF should handle such TMSI, LMTI, MSRN entities.

Thanks a lot, Nicolas.