TR: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded
Hi, Everyone: Sorry for the disturbance. This is a re-transmission due to some mailing errors. -----Message d'origine----- De: SAMOU Jean-claude FTRD/DAC/ISS [mailto:jeanclaude.samou@RD.FRANCETELECOM.FR] Date: mercredi 20 septembre 2000 18:01 À: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Objet: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Everyone: Sorry for not getting into the discussion earlier since I was out of station for some time. I just logged into my PC and saw your interesting e-mail discussion on mobility management protocols (in particular between the VLF and HLF). I would like to share here some concerns of Radhika Roy on this matter. As he clearly points out, the HLF and VLF are only value-added functions which are necessary for handling mobility of users. There is nothing specific in VLF <-> HLF in terms of mobility with respect packet vs. circuit or connection oriented vs connectionless, etc. As you are probably aware of, the IMT-2000 group in ITU-T SG11 is currently working on developing a common mobility management protocol which should accomodate various users of different types of mobile systems (e.g. IS-41, UMTS, etc). This is the well known FAMILY concept in ITU-T SG11. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. During this meeting, this mobility protocol work was briefly introduced by SG 11 and it was recognized that the requirements & major concepts identified for mobility in H.323 networks are very similar to those of IMT-2000 (since IMT-2000 should also provide packet-based multi-media services), and a close cooperation between these two groups is required on mobility and roaming aspects for the benefits of H.323 and IMT-2000 systems. In addition, this will allow the roaming of any users between different types of network (for instance an H.323 user roaming into an IS-41 or UMTS network and vice-versa). Therefore, I tend to disagree with Jaakko who says that IMT-2000 is not defining (or intended for) packet-based networks. For instance the concept of VLF and HLF are pretty much close to those of the LMFv and LMFh in IMT-2000 (see ITU-T Rec. Q.1711) for the strict reason that they are both server functions which handle mobility independently of the transport networks. Then why not a common protocol for common mobility requirements and functions? On the other hand, I agree that Extensions of H.323 (e.g. H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G]) need to be provided by Q.13/16 since they are very specific to the H.323 type of access. Again, I would like to support Radhika in his analysis of trying to develop a common solution that fits the need of any type of mobile users rather than developing one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, one VLF <-> HLF for H.321, etc. Otherwise, it will be a BIG mess for network operators (as well for manufacturers) and lead to have different protocols which may be incompatible between themselves. This will also make the inter-networking aspects very tough thereby preventing any global roaming of users. FYI, I would also like to inform you that 3GPP has selected SIP for its MULTIMEDIA stuff. In this case, how would it be possible to roam between a 3GPP network and H.323 network, and with other networks (not using SIP)unless an inter-connecting pipe such as a common MM protocol (which includes SIP mobility, H.323 mobility, IS-41 mobility, etc) is developed. Therefore, I would suggest that we should rather work with a more global picture of ITU (as supported by Radhika) than a narrow one limited to H.323 mobility only. Let me be more positive now. I would really encourage SG16 and SG11 to closely cooperate together in order to develop this common protocol jointly for the success of ITU. I believe that this step has already started at the joint SG16-SG11 meeting in February 00. Why shoudn't this be continued? Best regards, Jean-Claude Samou, PhD France Telecom R&D 38-40, rue du General Leclerc 92131 Issy les moulineaux France Tel: + 33 1 45 29 58 40 Fax: + 33 1 46 29 31 62 -----Message d'origine----- De: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Date: mardi 19 septembre 2000 14:15 À: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Objet: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi, Everyone: Let me repeat it again: We have applications H.323, H.321, etc. These are packet-based networks. There are other protocols like H.324 etc, that are optimized for PSTN/ISDN networks. Now the application/middleware layer control protocol like H.245 is applicable for all applications whether an application is sent over the packet networks or circuit-switched networks. Similarly, application/middleware layer VLF <-> HLF and other protocols are nothing do with packet vs. circuit-switched networks. It MUST be a common protocol. There is nothing specific in VLF <-> HLF with respect packet vs. circuit or connection oriented vs connectionless. People are trying to create confusions for fulfilling a VERY narrow objectives ignoring the BIG picture of the ITU. Even for the sake of argument, if we consider the applications only for the packet-switched networks, then we MUST develop the generic protocols like VLF <-> HLF and others that can be used by all protocols like H.323, H.321, etc. that are used by the packet-switched networks. The same argument is true for QOS, billing, authentication, directory, etc, and others. Let us not confuse things. Let us take another case: RSVP, DiffServ, etc. are the network layer QOS protocol. These network layer QOS services can be used by any applications (e.g., H.323, SIP, etc.) over the IP network. That is why, we MUST not develop one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.323, one VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.321, and another VLF <-> HLF protocol for H.324, etc. It is a mess and defeats the fundamental purpose for creating of COMMON standards by the ITU. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:34 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded Hi Radhika, Paul & others Shortly, my understanding is that IMT-2000 is not defining protocols suitable (or intended for) packet-based networks, i.e. H.323 Systems on top of e.g. IP, but they concentrate on more general level definitions. While I do think that we need to consider IMT-2000 as well as other 3G standardization bodies (I would argue that 3GPP is the dominant one at the moment) and use as much of the specifications available as possible, I still think that we need to make our own specifications for H.323. Even if we just re-use some existing protocols, the usage of these needs to be clearly specified in the context of H.323. -Jaakko
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
participants (1)
-
SAMOU Jean-claude FTRD/DAC/ISS