Paul,

With respect to two questions mentioned below on interaction between GK and BE, I agree with you that they are not addressed adequately at this time. Which are needed to be addressed in Q.5/16 (Mobility for Multimedia Systems and services) for H.MMS.1, H.MMS.2, H.MMS.3 recommendations.

I welcome the relevant experts input and contributions on this topic to SG16 meeting at Porte Seguro,Brazil.

regards, Paul Rapporteur for Q.5/16

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:14 PM To: Reddy, Paul K; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Re: Annex Gv2

Paul,

I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it relates to Q.5 work should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and comments I've received from others relating to reference point D. I believe the latter two issues are most significant.

Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK talk to the BE?" and "What good does it do to have the usage information in Annex G when it can't be passed to/from the GK?" Consideration should be given to whether those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) and whether we want to answer those question within the protocol at this time.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- From: "Reddy, Paul K" paul.k.reddy@INTEL.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2

Hi Radhika,

With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined the Objectives, scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's

meeting

in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 (Mobility for Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not been decided as

of

last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions have come in for Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for discussion on Mobility protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or other protocol etc.)

PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of H.225.0 Annex

Gv2,

if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul

regards, Paul

Paul K. Reddy Rapporteur for Q.5/16 Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896 Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564 Email: paul.k.reddy@intel.com

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Annex Gv2

Hi, Paul:

Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as well as non-mobility as follows:

1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G

version 2 can be considered for approval.

2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support

mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered

for

approval because of the following:

a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined that is consistent with its charter.

b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a.

c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G).

d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G.

These

are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for

each

application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.).

This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions.

Hope this will help.

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Annex Gv2

Folks,

The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval.

I

have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in the area of defining reference point D. Of course, we also have the open question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work.

For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell

me

if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting.

Thanks, Paul

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com