Priorities (RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.)

29 Feb 2000

      Radhika and all
We have a crying need to move forward with H.323, in order to offer value to
our customers (such as your company :-). A lot of expert time is being spent
on REAL needs such as H.248, robustness, better signalling support, better
service control  and mobility.
It is a question of priorities that each delegate should make on how they
best serve their industry. As has always been the case in SG16, if there is
a willingness of people to contribute, then the topic advances, otherwise it
stalls. (good example is H.246 Annex D).
In my humble opinion, it is unfare to ask people like Paul to spend their
time here. Let's wait for the interested parties to come up with proposals.
For what it's worth, I second Orit's motion on her #2 option. Again - SG16
should be focusing on added value, rather than on added market confusion.
Boaz
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:19 PM
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hi, Everyone:
I understand what Paul has pointed out. We know that a lot
work needs to be
done when it comes to an agreement between the two standard
organizations:
ITU-T SG16 and IETF. We have seen how other works had been
done in the past
cooperatively despite the difficulty.
However, there is a crying need in the industry for the H.323-SIP
interoperability standard. We are always optimistic that the
good-will will
always prevail for the benefit of the user community of the
whole world as
these standard organizations are committed to provide
interoperability.
We not talking about the work for the H.323-SIP
interoperability that is
being done in other forums (e.g., IMTC, ETSI/TIPHON, and
others). These
works will go on and they did in the past, and as they will
be doing now.
We are working for an internationally acceptable standard
where both ITU-T
and IETF will make it a formal standard. Accordingly, we are
working as per
agreement made in the last SG16 (Feb'00) meeting: To bring
contributions in
the SG16 ( - in Q.14/16 and joint discussions will be held
for both Q.13 and
Q.14).
It can also been seen that a request has also been sent to
the IETF for a
BOF session in the upcoming meeting (March'00).
Efforts are underway to overcome all difficulties. I
appreciate Paul to
clarify all aspects of difficulties that we might have to
face for working
in this new area and we are also counting on Paul's support
for our effort
as well.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones@TIES.ITU.INT]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 1:15 AM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Folks,
I agree that the goal of a standards body is to create
specifications to
...
allow interoperability.  However, this is "delicate"
territory.  This work
...
is not similar to creating a new annex to H.246 wherein the
ITU specifies
...
interoperability between various systems or protocols
defined elsewhere in
...
the ITU.  This work involves describing how to interwork an
ITU system
...
with
an IETF RFC.
It's not an impossible task, but one that may lead to
tremendous debate.
...
It
is quite obvious that some members of the ITU and some
members of the IETF
...
have very basic philosophical differences.  I can tell you that some
members
of the IETF will quickly reject anything the ITU does to standardize
interoperability.  I can also tell you that some of those
members will
...
also
reject anything ETSI does, as well.
This is not to say that I am opposed to such an effort-- if
companies
...
support the idea, that is enough of an indication to me
that people feel
...
it's necessary and should be done.  However, if we head
down that path, I
...
really believe that this should be a joint effort between
the ITU and the
...
IETF.  Why?  Because there are strengths and weaknesses with both
protocols
and one could easily introduce bias into such a
specification in such a
...
way
as to highlight the strengths of one protocol and the
weaknesses of the
...
other.
And, of course, everyone here knows that H.323 is far
superior to SIP,
...
right? :-)
Again, I do not disagree with the work.  However, as sad
and pathetic as
...
this statement may sound, it's true: the IETF members
(especially the
...
supporters of SIP) have little respect for the ITU and,
unless we do this
...
jointly, our lone efforts are likely to not be well received.  I've
already
heard enough negative remarks about the efforts the ITU is
undertaking
...
(especially in SG13) to describe new Internet protocols;
the claims are
...
that
"that is work the IETF does and the ITU has no business doing it".
It has already been suggested that a third party may be the
better choice
...
for such a work.  Mr. Taylor mentioned that ETSI may
already be doing
...
this.
Did I understand that correctly?  If that's the case, and
if we can get
...
the
IETF to agree to allow them to do such work, we should
probably let them
...
do
the work.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" rrroy@ATT.COM
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
...
Hi, Everyone:
I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has
also been the
...
case
...
for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting.
More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly
indicated that we
...
should
...
bring contributions to get the work started. The
interworking between
...
H.323
...
and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed
jointly with
...
Q.13
...
and Q.14).
There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP
Interworking. A large number of people throughout the
world (starting
...
from
...
the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me.
The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide
"INTEROPERABILITY."
...
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
+1 732 420 1580
rrroy@att.com
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit@radvision.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:42 PM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Dear Rob!
Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully.
The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a
contribution
...
...
for
Osaka meeting.
I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward,
especially if
...
many
...
...
people see it as valuable.
BTW: Who said  the work shouldn't be done jointly? My
point was that
...
it
...
...
may
start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU
and IETF". And
...
...
...
after
all we are NOT talking about joined standard
definition. In worst case
...
...
...
about
joined Network definition. :-))
Cheers,
Orit Levin
RADVision Inc.
575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
Fax: 1 201 529 3516
www.radvision.com
orit@radvision.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Callaghan, Robert Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com
To: 'Orit Levin' orit@radvision.com;
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
...
...
...
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Orit,
This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report:
======= Start
3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al]
This was presented together with D.413. Comments included:
· Concerns about joint development with IETF
· Which version of SIP would be used?
· Suggest postponing this until the next study period -
need to look
...
...
...
at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and
see how output
...
...
...
compares
with phrasing of work in these questions
· Activities should include comparing call models,
media signaling
...
...
...
· Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should
not be done in
...
...
...
SG16
· Forming a new question might not be the best answer -
this would
...
...
...
split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14
have moved away
...
from
...
...
joint sessions)
· Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use
only the IETF
...
...
...
equivalent of a Recommendation)
· Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP
Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions
on how to
...
approach
...
...
the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in
a controlled
...
...
...
architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a
framework.
...
...
See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report.
======= End
This is the statement in the Q.13 report:
======= Start
D.413(2/16)  [Canada]  - Interworking Between  H.323
and SIP Networks
...
...
...
This calls for the creation of an interoperability
question in SG16,
...
that
...
...
would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that
there are several
...
...
...
versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to
interoperate with SIP
...
as
...
...
SIP is ill-defined at this point in time.  The wisdom
of starting a
...
new
...
...
question near the end of the study period was also
questioned.  It was
...
...
...
also
mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of
defining
...
...
the procedures and architecture that would apply to
this work.   One
...
...
...
suggestion is that interoperability should be between  standards
bodies
...
...
such
as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of
the work, i.e.
...
that
...
...
the
target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents
produced by
...
...
...
various
other bodies.  There were various expressions of
support that this
...
should
...
...
be
studied, and contributions related to architectures and
priorities are
...
...
...
solicited.  It was agreed that contributions should
address both Q13
...
and
...
...
Q14.
======= End
I cannot see in these statements any thing representing
an agreement
...
as
to
...
...
the work to be performed.  Your attached terms of
reference were not
...
...
...
approved at the working party, which is required, nor
in the Question
...
...
...
meeting.  Without an agreement as to the scope, I do
not see how to
...
move
...
...
the
work forward, even if many people see it as valuable.
Therefore you
...
paper
...
...
on
terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to
the Osaka
...
meeting
...
...
for discussion.
I do know that the proposal for a new question was
rejected at the
...
...
...
question
level, and not brought forward to the working party or
study group
...
level.
...
...
Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work
with H.225.0
...
Annex
...
...
G
to TRIP.  Other items are to follow.
For me one of the problems is the culture clash.  I do
not feel that
...
the
...
...
ITU
should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not
accept any IETF
...
person
...
...
as an H.323 expert.  Therefore the work should be done
jointly.  No
...
one
...
...
wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is
the process to
...
be
...
...
used?
Bob

...
...
...
Robert Callaghan
Siemens Information and Communication Networks
Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403
Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com

...
...
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit@radvision.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hello Sebestyen!
There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the
same meaning,
...
but
I
...
...
am
sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva
meeting additional
...
...
...
related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I
was referring to
...
the
...
...
attached paper. (You will find references to relevant
contributions in
...
...
...
this
paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible
directions.
We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an
understanding
...
...
of the work we would like to pursue and prepare
contributions for
...
Osaka
...
...
meeting.
Best Regards,
Orit Levin
RADVision Inc.
575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
Fax: 1 201 529 3516
www.radvision.com
orit@radvision.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27
Istvan.Sebestyen@icn.siemens.de
...
...
...
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com;
...
'Orit
...
...
Levin' orit@radvision.com
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
...
Orit,
I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I
have only found in
...
...
...
TD-74
...
(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages:
"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking
This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP
interworking.
...
D.413(2/16)  [Canada]  - Interworking Between  H.323
and SIP Networks
...
...
...
...
This calls for the creation of an interoperability
question in SG16,
...
that
...
...
...
would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that
there are several
...
...
...
...
versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to
interoperate with
...
SIP
as
...
...
...
SIP is ill-defined at this point in time.  The wisdom
of starting a
...
new
...
...
...
question near the end of the study period was also
questioned.  It
...
was
...
...
also
...
mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done
in terms of
...
defining
...
...
...
the procedures and architecture that would apply to
this work.   One
...
...
...
...
suggestion is that interoperability should be between
standards
...
bodies
...
...
such
...
as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of
the work, i.e.
...
that
...
...
the
...
target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type
documents produced by
...
...
...
various
...
other bodies.  There were various expressions of
support that this
...
should
...
...
be
...
studied, and contributions related to architectures
and priorities
...
are
...
...
...
solicited.  It was agreed that contributions should
address both Q13
...
and
...
...
...
Q14."
Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the
interim work?
...
...
...
...
Regards,
Istvan

...
...
...

...
Dr. Istvan Sebestyen
Siemens AG, ICN M CS27,
Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich
Tel:+49-89-722-47230
Fax:+49-89-722-47713
E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen@icn.siemens.de;
istvan@sebestyen.de
...
...
...
...
E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen@yahoo.com;
Siemens
Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4
...
...
...
Siemens FTP:    ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de

...
...
...
--

...

...

From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit@radvision.com]
Reply To: Orit Levin
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
Hi!
I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX"
work in ITU-T
...
as
...
...
...
...
described in the initial paper.
H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new
specifications
...
...
in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF.
This is a time to
...
...
...
...
...
consider each one of these specifications to be
applied to H.323.
...
If
...
...
found
...
...
useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End
Services)
or
...
...
...
...
just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP
scenarios),
...
...
standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated.
These two are
...
...
...
...
...
connected since the first definitely helps the second.
The written above agenda is a proposal for the work
scope. Based on
...
our
...
...
...
...
discussions, it seems like more then one company
would like to see
...
this
...
...
...
...
work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability.
(forget the
...
name
...
...
:-)
...
...
) If we agree that standardization is needed for
this kind of work,
...
the
...
...
...
...
only possible way to do it is to participate in
ITU-T process (with
...
all
...
...
...
...
its meaning).
Currently we are in the beginning of the process
sorting out topics
...
of
...
...
our
...
...
interest. I think most of us are aware of the work
being done in
...
other
...
...
...
...
organizations. We would like to see experts
(including from TIPHON
...
and
...
...
...
...
IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting
from the mailing
...
list)
...
...
...
...
keeping us from repeating their work and being
aligned with them.
...
...
...
...
...
Best Regards,
Orit Levin
RADVision Inc.
575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
Fax: 1 201 529 3516
www.radvision.com
orit@radvision.com

Michaely, Boaz

tags (0)

participants (1)