Forwarded per Mr. Roy's request (his IT dept is working on the problem).

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:17 AM To: 'BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS'; ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

Hi, Mr. Bougant and All:

If I understand your argument, it is this: "an annex of H.225, It would not be possible to make it evolve in order to meet the requirements of multimedia services THAT WOULD NOT BE call related."

Now let us examine: What is H.225.0 Annex G protocol that is used among the BEs? Is not a kind of H.225.0 RAS messages that is de-coupled from the H.225.0 Q.931/932 call setup?

So, from technical point of view, it is this: H.225.0 Annex G and the proposed H.22x are working in the same space. If we want to deprecate H.225.0 Annex G without enhancing it, only then, we can work for H.22x.

The only advantage for H.22x that I see it is non-technical: The mobility group (Q.5) will be able to work independently without going through a process for enhancing of H.225.0 Annex G that is controlled by another group (Q.2).

Now, my question to all SG16 members: Do you all want to support H.22x (instead of extending H.225.0 Annex G)?

I have made points clearly and adequately. Now I will leave the matter to all other SG16 members to decide. I will keep myself off leaving the decision entirely to other SG16 members.

Finally, I like to thank all members for participating in the debate. The bottom line is this: Let us decide H.22x or Enhancement of H.225.0 Annex G for mobility in the upcoming SG16 meeting.

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy

-----Original Message----- From: BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS [mailto:francois.bougant@RD.FRANCETELECOM.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:15 AM To: ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

Hi all,

I fully agree with the arguments previously expressed by Ernst Orvath for H.22x in the specific context (H.22X being an enhanced version of H.225 annex G v2 draft). So I vote for H.22x.

If such this MM protocol becomes a standard as an annex of H.225, It would not be possible to make it evolve in order to meet the requirements of multimedia services THAT WOULD NOT BE call related. This doesn't fit our decision to design a generic MM protocol. This justifies the "documentation" advantage as mentionned by Ernst.

Anyway, considering the short time remaining until the plenary meeting, I would suggest to discuss also about the protocol design itself.

Cordially

François Bougant France Telecom

-----Message d'origine----- De : Meyer, Greg W [mailto:greg.w.meyer@INTEL.COM] Envoyé : mercredi 23 janvier 2002 19:21 À : ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Objet : Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

Forwarded per Mr. Roy's request...

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:12 AM To: Horvath Ernst; ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Cc: Meyer, Greg W Subject: RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

( Mr. Meyer: I would appreciate if you would kindly forward my message to the SG16 reflector.)

Hi, Mr. Ernst:

I understand your points. Now the question is: Do we want to kill or deprecate H.225.0 Annex G in the longer term through standardization of H.22x?

Let us debate the pros and cons of H.22x from technical point of view (I will withdraw my objections to H.22x if sufficient technical arguments are provided). This is the fundamental debate for all of us in the SG16.

So far, I have voted for enhancement of H.225.0 Annex G for mobility (because H.22x differs from H.225.0 Annex G by only 2/3 messages and does not say why it has to be fundamentally different from H.225.0 Annex G.)

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy rrroy@att.com