Hi Everybody, Please visit Pictel site for reviewing the final H.246 Annex E.1 and H.246 Annex E.2 document, which are submitted for decision during November meeting in Geneva. http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/011_Gen and http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/Incoming Please review the documents and provide you comments to me at your earliest convenience. regards, Paul Editor of H.246 Annex E.1 & H.246 Annex E.2 Paul K. Reddy Intel Corporation Office Phone# +1 (503)-264-9896 Mobile Phone# +1 (503)-807-9564 Email: paul.k.reddy@intel.com -----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 1:10 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] About GK discovery Hi Radhika et al, You're right, there is no point in continuing this discussion without other members' participation in it. I'll just make a couple of short points and then wait for hopefully somebody else to make their comments.

Therefore, all wireless environment is NOT bandwidth restrictive.

Nor is wireline, of course. The point was that when you introduced the idea of the MGA, your argument was that it would SAVE bandwidth. In fact, as far as I could understand, this was the only argument you had for the use of MGA. Now you are saying that, although the MGA probably uses more bandwidth than the GRQ scheme, it is alright, because in some networks, the bandwidth is not so scarse. We discussed the idea of the MGA in Osaka and if you can remember, none of the participants of the discussion were supporting the addition of this message to H.323 (or RAS, to be more specific). When the bandwidth issue was discussed, I remember that you were asked to produce some data or information that would support the idea that in some cases the MGA would save bandwidth. So far you have not done so. So, as I said earlier, I'm happy to include the MGA in the annex, if you are able to convince, not only me, but other memebers interested in the issue, about the merits of the MGA scheme. Unfortunately this discussion hasn't been participated by the others so far. The idea of better interworking with mobile IP might be a reason for introducing the MGA. However, you yourself asked for technical reasoning and now I'm asking the same from you. Modelling other protocols is often a good guide in protocol design (and we surely have used it), but my opinion (and I feel it is shared by many others) is that just saying that because some other protocol has some, in this case alternate, mechanisms for doing something, is not a technical reason for adding exactly the same mechanisms to our protocol. You are asking me to explain why mobile IP uses these two mechanisms, but I think it is you who should explain that and furthermore explain why both of these are needed in H.323. Now, let's open the discussion for other members, I can see that this dialogue is not leading us anywhere. -Jaakko ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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