Francois,

You are correct that your first solution would cause backward-compatibility problems, because the called EP merely _selects_ which OLCs it wants to use.

From the caller's proposed OLCs, it returns the ones that it accepts. It

cannot provide its own OLCs or otherwise modify the proposed OLCs. The Recommendation is quite clear about this. I can quote from it, if necessary. :-)

I'm afraid that the only solution is the second one you describe, but IMO it is not necessary to provide every possible value within a range, e.g., 100, 99, 98, 97... From my experience at interops, it seems like G.711 framing is limited to either 60, 30, 20, or 10ms frames, so that's what I would propose in addition to your own 100ms maximum. (Note that for some EPs, this is not their maximum framing but the _exact_ framing that you must use!)

Our EP currently just proposes one type of media per session ID (due to another problem with FC). We propose G.723.1 and H.263. This is what our fastStart looks like in order to overcome the problem you describe:

in G.723.1, maxframes 4, SS out G.723.1, maxframes 4, SS out G.723.1, maxframes 4, no SS out G.723.1, maxframes 1, no SS in H.263, SQCIF 1, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, SQCIF 1, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, QCIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, QCIF 2, no vTSTO

Note that it's only necessary to provide maximum caps for incoming media, because the called EP can always ignore features it does not support, e.g., SS and CIF, and undershoot your maximum framing. Once/if we support multiple media per session ID, this is probably what it would look like:

in G.723.1, maxframes 4, SS out G.723.1, maxframes 4, SS out G.723.1, maxframes 4, no SS out G.723.1, maxframes 1, no SS in G.711, ALaw, maxFrames 200 out G.711, ALaw, maxFrames 60 out G.711, ALaw, maxFrames 30 out G.711, ALaw, maxFrames 20 out G.711, ALaw, maxFrames 10 in G.711, muLaw, maxFrames 200 out G.711, muLaw, maxFrames 60 out G.711, muLaw, maxFrames 30 out G.711, muLaw, maxFrames 20 out G.711, muLaw, maxFrames 10 in H.263, SQCIF 1, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, SQCIF 1, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, QCIF 1, vTSTO out H.263, QCIF 2, no vTSTO in H.261, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.261, QCIF 1, CIF 1, vTSTO out H.261, QCIF 1, vTSTO out H.261, QCIF 2, no vTSTO

(whew!)

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

-----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 12:35 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: FastStart and payload size

Another glitch with fast connect...

The OpenLogicalChannel indicates in dataType.audioData the MAXIMUM payload size for the forward channel to be opened. In non-fast start, the endpoint opening the channel would obviously use the information it gathered in the terminal capability exchange in order not to try to open a channel that would exceed's the receiver's capabilities.

In fastStart, there is no terminal capability negotiation. The endpoint sending the SETUP message includes the MAXIMUM payload size it can support in both direction since it can not guess what are the capabilites of the receiver. The receiver has to "select" from the list provided in the SETUP.

Suppose that A calls B using fast start. A has a big buffer and can support G.711 at up to 100 ms (send and receive). B can only support 20 ms. A calls B using fastStart and advertizes 100 ms for both direction. B has no choice but to reject the call, or to initiate H.245 tunnelling or a separate H.245 channel. This means to me that it can actually be a disadvantage to advertize a bigger maximum payload size than the default in fasStart. It also mean that fast start only has a reasonable chance of working well if by chance the called party can handle an equal or larger payload size than the originator.

Any views on this?

One possibility is that the receiving endpoint would be allowed to signal a SMALLER payload size in the OLC it sends back to the originator. This would however mean a change to the specification, and would potentially mean backward interoperability problems since current implementations may not accept OLC contents that do not match what was originally sent in the OLC in the SETUP message (they might reject the call, or might ignore the changed values).

The other possibility is for the sender of the SETUP message to advertize multiple payload size as alternative OLCs. While it would be possible in some cases to completely describe one's capabilities without creating huge fastStart messages (eg., G.723-30 ms, G.723-60 ms), it may not be practical for others (e.g., G.711-100 ms, G.711-99 ms, G.711-98 ms, ... down to 1 ms). This would mean that in some cases, you might be restricted to only a few (maybe advertize the maximum and the default). Maybe a trick would be to advertize always at least the default (20 ms) if supported, and the maximum if different.

In any case, I think we should clarify the procedures.

----- François Audet Tel:+1 408 565 5675 mailto:audet@NortelNetworks.com mailto:audet@NortelNetworks.com Nortel Networks Fax:+1 408 565 2375 http://www.NortelNetworks.com http://www.nortelnetworks.com/