Bob,

what sort of problem are you talking about?

charles -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:38 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Draft Status Update

Paul,

Based on the rule that the SIP-H.323 gateway appears to the endpoints as an H.323 firewall, then this will work. If there ever is any difference, then there is a problem

I prefer to keep the "h323" designation.

Bob

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:33 PM To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update

Bob,

I was not suggesting that we use the h323-ID field any differently-- it was the "h323" field inside the supportedProtocols choice. It is used to indicate a gateway that gateways to H.323 devices. However, it could serve just as well to say it gateways to any IP telephony protocol. That's why I suggested we call it "ipgw".

Whether we do that or add a "sip" field makes no difference to me, but the latter option may take 2 years.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- From: "Callaghan, Robert" Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com To: "'Paul E. Jones'" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:18 AM Subject: RE: Draft Status Update

Paul,

I thought that the object of the IWF is to make the mixing of H.323 terminals and SIP terminals transparent.

However, I could see supporting SIP: URLs in the H.323 URL field along

with

the H.323 URL. This would be possible under the URL rules for H.323v4. I would also expect SIP terminals to support the H.323 URL.

The does not solve the problem of true E.164 Ids or the TEL: URL. A true E.164 Id does not allow for a service prefix. In that this is the normal

Id

for voice calls, it must have a solution. An added problem is "Number Portability" which tends to kill number grouping.

I do not accept the concept of hidden usages of any field. Therefor I do not support the use of the H.323ID field having a special format that indicates a SIP connection. The H.323ID field should remain a free format string.

As it was stated, the gateway identifieds as having H.323 protocol is used by firewalls doing H.323-H.323. Also voice indicates any gateway support voice only connections. These should be mis-used. Adding a new protocol type for a gateway would have to wait.

Bob

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:08 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Draft Status Update

Charles,

I have discussed that idea with people before.

I'm certainly open to the idea of adding a "sip" codepoint. However,

since

H.323v4 was just approved, we'd have to wait for 2 years to get it in

there.

We might be able to persuade folks to use the "h323" field for IP GWs and document that in the H.323 Implementers Guide-- perhaps even changing the name in v5 to "ipgw".

Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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