All,

I agree with Tom. We seem to be headed for designing an entire mobile network within H.323 -- definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog. If this was the desire, extending existing mobile networks (AMPS, GSM, etc.) to include H.323 terminals would be simpler. That is, of course, unless you wanted the terminals to be independent of the physical network from the network layer on up. H.323 could do this if there was an underlying packet based network -- probably IP. Using IP as a common network layer for both wireless and wired terminals is of course all the rage these days. Given that universal wireless terminals are been worked as part of IMT-2000 (and 3GPP, 3GPP-2, etc.), wouldn't it make sense to define the Annex H issues being debated in the appropriate network groups?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought in Santiago the purpose of Annex H and I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal and/or user, and also allow for service mobility. I don't think any of what is being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this.

Barry

-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion

I think a basic point in this discussion is that mobility is "bigger than" H.323 and already has well-established architectural underpinnings. It's all very well to talk about an H.323 solution which we could then adapt, but we would more likely end up with an H.323-only solution as a result. The concern then would be whether vendors saw sufficient opportunity in building to this market, compared with the general market for mobility products.