There will be another conference call to discuss H.225.0 Annex G: date: 4 September 1998 (Friday) time: 9:00am Mountain Time (8:00 Pacific, 11:00 Eastern, etc) bridge number: +1 630-224-4444 code: 911202 duration: 1 hour

Tentative agenda (time permitting): - review of Pete Cordell's proposal - review of Radhika Roy's proposal - review of Andrew Draper's proposal

Notes from the last call:

We started by trying to reach some closure on Santo Wiryaman's proposal. Points from the discussion:

- All border elements should be required to support H.225 V2 for newly defined alias addresses (especially email-id)

- If some form of hierarchy is imposed, who controls the root node in the hierarchy?

- Private networks have different numbering schemes than the public network, so addresses cannot be resolved through the hierarchy in the public network.

- Number portability is common in private networks, so using a hierarchy in private networks to aid address resolution may not be totally beneficial.

- We may need some form of indirection or re-routing in the address resolution to support notions like number portability. How does this work in the telephone network, for example to resolve 800 numbers?

- Can we rely on, or benefit from, mobile IP mechanisms? Will this solve mobility for free?

- Call signaling (i.e., Setup message) and address resolution (annex G protocol, various existing RAS messages) may follow different paths.

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