Minutes of the 3rd Q.5 Teleconference jointly with Q.2 and Q.G experts

January 25, 16:00 - 17:35 CET

Participants: * Minor Gleason (CICSO), H.225.0 Annex GV2 Editor * Martin Euchner (Siemens AG), H.235 Annex G.1 Editor * Paul Reddy (Intel Corp), Q.5 Rapporteur * Ernst Horvath (Siemens AG); Editor of H.22x and of H.MMS.1 * Francois Bougant (France Telecom), Editor of H.MMS.0 * Radhika Roy (ATT)

Mr. Euchner volunteered as teleconference chair and took down notes for the meeting minutes as shown below.

Agenda: 1. H.22x Status and progress 2. H.MMS.1 Status and progress 3. H.MMS.0 Status and progress 4. H.235 Annex G.1 and new key management protocol: status and progress 5. H.225.0 Annex Gv2 Status and progress 6. Resolution of potential between H.22x and H.225.0 Annex Gv2 7. Open Issues 8. Discussion on protocol design 9. Preparation for the Geneva SG meeting 10. AOB

After the initial get together and introduction, the agenda was settled. The goal of this teleconference was to obtain understanding in the current situation of the drafts, resolve critical and controversial issues and prepare for the SG16 meeting ahead. As part of this, the editors gave a brief status report on the draft recommendations.

Ad 1) Mr. Horvath first gave some background information on the decision made in Dublin, to create a separate draft recommendation H.22x for mobility purposes. The current draft as submitted in a recent delayed contribution shows only minor changes against the previous version since the last teleconference. The editor believes that the document is ready to be finalized to go into consent.

Ad 2) Then, Mr. Horvath reported on the status of H.MMS.1. That draft has not been updated since the last teleconference. The content is seen as stable and the editor believes that the document is ready to be finalized to go into consent.

Ad 3.) Mr. Bougant gave status on H.MMS.0. That draft is scheduled for consent in October 2002. He feels that there is not yet full consensus upon the contents and some more work and considerations are necessary. It was agreed that the topic of H.MMS.0 is not as urgent for the upcoming SG meeting; thus, this agenda item was postponed.

Ad 4.) Mr. Euchner pointed to two delayed contributions regarding H.235 Annex G. One contribution requests to separate security for user/terminal mobility from the generic mobility management security issues. This would narrow the scope of H.235 Annex G.1. It is proposed to address the user/terminal mobility security issues in a distinct H.235 annex G.1. Another delayed contribution proposes an entirely new and improved key management & security protocol for H.235 Annex G.1. That document has undergone substantial revision since the last teleconference: several open issues are now solved such as terminal authentication, missing procedures added and much more editorial cleanup.

Ad 5).

Mr. Gleason briefly reported on the situation regarding H.225.0 annex Gv2. He mentioned to have an alternative draft in preparation, but he has not made any submissions yet. This would depend on the outcome of the teleconference, he said.

Ad 6.) Some emails have been exchanged via the reflector prior to the conference, addressing concerns and attempts on clarification on potential overlap between H.225.0 Annex G and H.22x.

The editor pointed out that he removed the overlap on the border elements. He has chosen a neutral term "peer entity" that could be applied to any mobility functional entity. The group agreed to this procedure and the concerns were basically settled.

The next question was how to document this important distinction? Further Mr. Bougant asked how H.22x relates against call-related services with open interfaces of service control nodes and external databases of a generic mobility management protocol?

It was generally understood that H.22x goes far beyond H.323 without explicitly addressing call related services. However, mobility and management issues are within the scope of H.22x.

It was agreed that keeping H.22x separate from H.225.0 Annex G is seen as the better and clearer way. A clear and unambiguous name of draft H.22x needs to be chosen. Some ideas such as "Communication protocol among entities", "Mobility of Multimedia Systems" or the editors title in the delayed contribution should be considered as input. However, it was also pointed out, that the title should somehow address the relationship with call control and in general, some taxonomy would really be helpful. The terminology and scope should be general enough and as such not be limited to Annex G and border elements.

As an action item, the editor(s) will work this issue out and make some proposals for that matter (first on mailing list if possible and then as input to the SG16 Q.5 discussion).

Ad 7.) Several open issues in the drafts deserve resolution until finalizing the documents. In general, all experts are requested to carefully review the available documents for consent and assist in resolving any existing or new open issues.

The editors briefly touched the most urgent issues and showed where more work is needed.

7.1 Open issues in the H.22x Delayed Contribution:

- Page 8 points out an open issue regarding the different usage of TPKT for UDP vs. TCP. That problem actually refers to Annex G.1, but it is not fully understood yet in the light of H.22x. As no Annex Gv1 experts were present who could give reasoning, it was suggested to raise this issue on the mailing list, perhaps additionally asking VocalTec on some hints.

- The AccessRequest messages have been removed in H.22x. However, some more input is needed regarding the optional features. This appears not really crucial as this issue is considered as for further study.

- Editors note 1 in section 5.4: It was proposed to use the neutral term "peer element" instead of "border element". - The second editors note could be removed.

- The OID for H.22x is proposed to be the same as for H.225.0 Annex G unless someone comes with a counterproposal.

A question was raised how to potentially incorporate and address further messages for H.22x at some point in the future. It was said, that doing this would be well possible, based upon the available extension mechanism.

- An editorial inconsistency was pointed out regarding full names such as AccessRejection (Annex G, H.22x) vs. AuthenticationReject (H.235 Annex G.1). It was agreed to use the long names consistently in all documents; the editors of H.22x and H.235 Annex G.1 will change the text accordingly.

7.2 Open issues in H.MMS.1:

- An open issue appears on page 2 regarding the identification to put into the address pattern (email ID or URL form?). While no apparent solution was immediately available, experts are requested to think about this issue and come up with proposals.

- It was desired to have the Q.2 experts review the correct and inline usage of the RAS messages.

- Q.5 experts should review the used terminology such as e.g. "H.323 mobile terminal" or consider potential alternative names like "hosting terminal".

- The H.MMS.1 architecture is described to be fully self-contained without any forward reference to H.MMS.0 generic mobility management architecture. Mr. Bougant considers H.MMS.1 architecture as a subset of the H.MMS.1 architecture, where H.MMS.0 addresses a broader scope and being separate from the H.MMS.1 with H.323 specific aspects. It was also said that the names and reference points were chosen differently from those in H.MMS.0.

Ad 10) Mr. Reddy asked on whether contributions were submitted regarding H.MMS.3 "Presence" and H.MMS.4"Instant Messaging". At that point in time, no such contribution were identified, but also not precluded to be somewhere in the queue as the TSB has not yet completed its job.

The chair closed the Teleconference by thanking all the participants for joining and helping make progress in the matters. He wished everyone a safe journey to Geneva.

With kind regards

Martin Euchner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dipl.-Inf. Phone: +49 89 722 55790 | Martin Euchner Fax : +49 89 722 47713 | Siemens AG | ICN M SR 3 mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de mailto:Martin.Euchner@icn.siemens.de | mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int mailto:martin.euchner@ties.itu.int | Hofmannstr. 51 Intranet: http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/sr/pages/122/122_euchner.htm http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/sr/pages/122/122_euchner.htm | D-81359 Muenchen Internet: http://www.siemens.de/ http://www.siemens.de/ | __________________ | Germany -----------------------------------------------------------------------