RE: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul, I was afraid that this might happen. The changes under discussion were agreed to in Osaka, with the participants understanding the risks. To not include it in v4 would be a substantive change from the agreed content which I challenge as being beyond the discression of the editor to make editorial changes. There is a real problem in that keypad information must be sent before the connect message. This is needed to support network services in the U.S. Because the H.245 rules require the exchange of TSC and master-slave before any other messages may be sent, there is a significate delay after fast connect before keypad digits may be sent. In Osaka, several proposal were submitted to solve this and other needed negotiation problems. The agreed solution was the proposal for which you have reservations. This is needed in the real world. PLEASE! find a solutions that will not remove these changes! Bob -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:14 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4 Paul, We agreed at the Osaka meeting to allow a SETUP to contain both the fastStart and h245Control, but it has not been officially approved by the ITU. As it stands right now, I don't think I can agree to include it in H.323v4 on the grounds that it breaks backward compatibility with V2-- I just don't see a clean solution here. I'm opening to hearing more suggestions, but as you pointed out, there are two issues: 1) H.323v2 states explicitly that it is illegal 2) There is no way to know what version to destination EP is before sending this illegal message Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" <Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM> To: <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:34 AM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Pete,
Table 13/H.225.0v3 shows that the User-to-User IE is mandatory. What IEs do you believe are not mandatory?
H.323 states that the fastStart and h245Control components cannot both be present in the Setup message (do I need to quote it again?). A Setup User-to-User IE containing either or neither component is valid; one containing both is clearly invalid. Why do you think otherwise?
H.323, by way of Q.931, requires that the called EP respond with ReleaseComplete with cause 100. There is no other appropriate cause.
The feature that should be deprecated is the inclusion of both fastStart and h245Control in Setup. I was under the impression that either through IGv3 or H.323v4 this had already made it into the standard. If its not too late, we should simply remove this feature from any proposed text; if it is too late, we should deprecate it because it causes insurmountable backward compatibility problems.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete@TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:31 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
I don't really believe that the release cause you cite is valid. The IEs are not mandatory, and (taken by themselves) they don't have invalid content. I don't believe it is the intent of this cause code to signal the sort of thing that we are talking about here either.
Are there any other causes and clauses that you think might be more appropriate?
Also, when you say "the feature" should be deprecated, what are you referring to as "the feature"? I'm not quite clear.
Pete.
============================================= Pete Cordell pete@tech-know-ware.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
Rob, Simply put, the _proposed_ changes would "break" H.323. Therefore, they must be rescinded. How do you propose we resolve this issue? Remember, "The calling endpoint shall not include both a fastStart element and encapsulated H.245 messages in h245Control in the same Setup message..." Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:12 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4 Paul, I was afraid that this might happen. The changes under discussion were agreed to in Osaka, with the participants understanding the risks. To not include it in v4 would be a substantive change from the agreed content which I challenge as being beyond the discression of the editor to make editorial changes. There is a real problem in that keypad information must be sent before the connect message. This is needed to support network services in the U.S. Because the H.245 rules require the exchange of TSC and master-slave before any other messages may be sent, there is a significate delay after fast connect before keypad digits may be sent. In Osaka, several proposal were submitted to solve this and other needed negotiation problems. The agreed solution was the proposal for which you have reservations. This is needed in the real world. PLEASE! find a solutions that will not remove these changes! Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Bob, Is it really beyond the editor's discretion to react to problems which come to light in between the formal meetings? I thought that was one of the purposes of this list! Alternative solutions are being sought, but the one discussed in Osaka is clearly too flawed to be permitted to proceed. Regards, Chris "Callaghan, Robert" wrote:
Paul,
I was afraid that this might happen.
The changes under discussion were agreed to in Osaka, with the participants understanding the risks. To not include it in v4 would be a substantive change from the agreed content which I challenge as being beyond the discression of the editor to make editorial changes.
There is a real problem in that keypad information must be sent before the connect message. This is needed to support network services in the U.S. Because the H.245 rules require the exchange of TSC and master-slave before any other messages may be sent, there is a significate delay after fast connect before keypad digits may be sent. In Osaka, several proposal were submitted to solve this and other needed negotiation problems. The agreed solution was the proposal for which you have reservations. This is needed in the real world.
PLEASE! find a solutions that will not remove these changes!
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:14 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
We agreed at the Osaka meeting to allow a SETUP to contain both the fastStart and h245Control, but it has not been officially approved by the ITU.
As it stands right now, I don't think I can agree to include it in H.323v4 on the grounds that it breaks backward compatibility with V2-- I just don't see a clean solution here.
I'm opening to hearing more suggestions, but as you pointed out, there are two issues: 1) H.323v2 states explicitly that it is illegal 2) There is no way to know what version to destination EP is before sending this illegal message
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" <Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM> To: <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:34 AM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Pete,
Table 13/H.225.0v3 shows that the User-to-User IE is mandatory. What IEs do you believe are not mandatory?
H.323 states that the fastStart and h245Control components cannot both be present in the Setup message (do I need to quote it again?). A Setup User-to-User IE containing either or neither component is valid; one containing both is clearly invalid. Why do you think otherwise?
H.323, by way of Q.931, requires that the called EP respond with ReleaseComplete with cause 100. There is no other appropriate cause.
The feature that should be deprecated is the inclusion of both fastStart and h245Control in Setup. I was under the impression that either through IGv3 or H.323v4 this had already made it into the standard. If its not too late, we should simply remove this feature from any proposed text; if it is too late, we should deprecate it because it causes insurmountable backward compatibility problems.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete@TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:31 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
I don't really believe that the release cause you cite is valid. The IEs are not mandatory, and (taken by themselves) they don't have invalid content. I don't believe it is the intent of this cause code to signal the sort of thing that we are talking about here either.
Are there any other causes and clauses that you think might be more appropriate?
Also, when you say "the feature" should be deprecated, what are you referring to as "the feature"? I'm not quite clear.
Pete.
============================================= Pete Cordell pete@tech-know-ware.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
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Paul,
I was afraid that this might happen.
The changes under discussion were agreed to in Osaka, with the
Bob, I think we reached an agreement on this. We will be adding a new field to the Setup-UUIE called "earlyH245Control" that will allow an endpoint to provide tunneled H.245 messages in the SETUP. The called endpoint will be required to extract the H.245 messages in that field if it indicates support for H.245 tunneling in the response message it returns. The calling endpoint will know that the field was accepted by the called endpoint if it learns that the called endpoint supports tunneling AND is a V4 or higher endpoint. So fear not.. I believe we can incorporate the text with just a minor change :-) Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com> To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej@PACKETIZER.COM> Cc: "'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16'" <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:12 AM Subject: RE: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4 participants
understanding the risks. To not include it in v4 would be a substantive change from the agreed content which I challenge as being beyond the discression of the editor to make editorial changes.
There is a real problem in that keypad information must be sent before the connect message. This is needed to support network services in the U.S. Because the H.245 rules require the exchange of TSC and master-slave before any other messages may be sent, there is a significate delay after fast connect before keypad digits may be sent. In Osaka, several proposal were submitted to solve this and other needed negotiation problems. The agreed solution was the proposal for which you have reservations. This is needed in the real world.
PLEASE! find a solutions that will not remove these changes!
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:14 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
We agreed at the Osaka meeting to allow a SETUP to contain both the fastStart and h245Control, but it has not been officially approved by the ITU.
As it stands right now, I don't think I can agree to include it in H.323v4 on the grounds that it breaks backward compatibility with V2-- I just don't see a clean solution here.
I'm opening to hearing more suggestions, but as you pointed out, there are two issues: 1) H.323v2 states explicitly that it is illegal 2) There is no way to know what version to destination EP is before sending this illegal message
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" <Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM> To: <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:34 AM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Pete,
Table 13/H.225.0v3 shows that the User-to-User IE is mandatory. What IEs do you believe are not mandatory?
H.323 states that the fastStart and h245Control components cannot both be present in the Setup message (do I need to quote it again?). A Setup User-to-User IE containing either or neither component is valid; one containing both is clearly invalid. Why do you think otherwise?
H.323, by way of Q.931, requires that the called EP respond with ReleaseComplete with cause 100. There is no other appropriate cause.
The feature that should be deprecated is the inclusion of both fastStart and h245Control in Setup. I was under the impression that either through IGv3 or H.323v4 this had already made it into the standard. If its not too late, we should simply remove this feature from any proposed text; if it is too late, we should deprecate it because it causes insurmountable backward compatibility problems.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete@TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:31 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
Paul,
I don't really believe that the release cause you cite is valid. The IEs are not mandatory, and (taken by themselves) they don't have invalid content. I don't believe it is the intent of this cause code to signal the sort of thing that we are talking about here either.
Are there any other causes and clauses that you think might be more appropriate?
Also, when you say "the feature" should be deprecated, what are you referring to as "the feature"? I'm not quite clear.
Pete.
============================================= Pete Cordell pete@tech-know-ware.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 (4)
-
Callaghan, Robert -
Chris Wayman Purvis -
Paul E. Jones -
Paul Long