Roy,

It is the charter of Q13/16 to develop of Multimedia over IP applications. It is not limited to H.323, although this is the primary standard of interest.

H.248 is a standard that is independent from H.323, but in the scope of multimedia over IP. This is in the scope of Q13/16. Now SG9 is standardizing MGCP in competition with H.248. In that SG9 is chartered with standards related to cable systems and MGCP is used in the cable industry, it is in their scope (Not good; but true).

Annex G, is clearly a backend service that is used in support of H.323. It is also in the scope of Q13/16. VLF <-- --> HLF communication is clearly analogous with Annex G. Based on this analogy, it can be in the scope of Q13/16.

Yes, IMT-2000 covers the next generation of mobile products. The last time I looked, SG16 is a participant in IMT-2000 regarding the multimedia applications. Based on this, any work done in SG16 regarding the support of multimedia application is, by definition, part of IMT-2000.

A common solution for backend services is good. However, the operative word is common, as in fully supports all needs. Your example of H.245 is good. However, a focused solution that does not support all needs is worse than no solution. In your knowledge, do the solutions proposed by SG11 cover the needs of H.323? As an example, does the transport method scale to the smaller sized systems supported by H.323? If SG11 is truly considering the needs of H.323 this is very good; but this is not consistent with the past. As an example, they insist that all call control signaling must be ISUP, which does not scale to the smaller sizes.

I think that Q13/16 should move forward with the standards necessary to support multimedia over IP. I accept the ruling of the rapporteur as to the scope of this work. I do not think that energy should be expended with further debates on this subject. If someone does not agree with the decision of the rapporteur, then the decision should be appealed to the working party or study group chairman. This is far more effective that the current argumentation.

Just my opinion,

Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:48 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded

Hi, Paul:

I am glad that you have asked this question.

HLF and VLF are value-added functions, and these server functions are necessary for any mobile users. IMT-2000 is working to develop these protocols. SG16 and SG11 had one joint meeting in the last Feb'00 in Geneva. These protocols are VLF <-> HLF and others.

All we (Q.13/16) need to do: An interface with the VLF by the H.323 GK.

(An analogy can also given: H.245 is a common set of control protocol that is being used by H.323, H.324, and other applications.)

If there are one or more functions are needed for any reasons that are specific to H.323, people can always augment that particular protocol. This is a fact of life.

The same is also true for QoS, authentication, accounting, billing, and others.

More importantly, IMT-2000 is dedicated for mobility.

Our (Q.13/16) primary task is to extend the H.323 protocol for supporting mobility (as explained many times) is as follows:

Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 [RAS, Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs. (Contributions are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.)

If we do NOT this part 1, we are NOT doing our primary job because the solution will NOT fly. We are rather "building a castle in the air."

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T

-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:45 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded

Radhika, et al,

I have to confess that I have had no time to really follow the Annex H work, but I do have a question to toss out here:

Why do you consider the VLF or HLF functions outside the scope of Q13/16? I assume that these functions are IP-based (or at least used with the same call signaling transport as the H.323 system) and integrate with the H.323 functions.

You stated below that these functions are common for all mobile systems. I will not argue that point, but will a common solution be the most appropriate for H.323 systems? I would guess that trying to introduce a generic mechanism may or may not be the best solution for H.323.

I'd like to hear counter arguments to yours. Apparently others felt that these functions were necessary for H.323 systems and should be defined within the H.323 framework.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO" rrroy@ATT.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded

Hi, Everyone:

The document MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor remains basically same from the fundamentally point of view. So, the comments provided on the September 8 email (copy enclosed) remains the same as

stated

earlier. The comments can be summarized as follows:

The Annex should be divided into two parts:

Part 1: Within the scope of Q.13/16: Extension of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0

[RAS,

Q.931, Annex G] and H.245 messages): Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs.

(Contributions

are there: D.354 of SG16 Feb'00/TD-31 of Portland'00.)

Part 2: Outside the scope of Q.13/16: Back-end services related to

Mobility

(or value-added services related mobility) containing VLF and HLF.

So, it can be seen clearly that MD-106 (H.323 Annex H) submitted by the editor does not contain the basic part 1 which is within the scope of Q.13/16 (it rather contains part 2 which is outside the scope of Q.13/16).

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:23 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] H.323 Annex H status check

Hi, Everyone:

The draft does not contain the basic part: Extensions of H.323 (e.g., H.225.0 messages). Contributions are there (e.g., D.354 of SG16 Feb'00, Geneva - reproduced as TD-31 in Portland [August 21-15, 2000]). GRQ

messages

need to be removed to the base spec of H.323 because there is nothing specific to be done with mobility. If it is used in the context of

mobility,

the issues related to mobile need to be pointed out so that contributions can be brought to address those issues. Contributions are there to note

the

issues.

The another suggestion is to make two parts of the Annex: 1. Basic

extension

of H.323 (H.225.0, H.245: Terminals, GKs/BEs, GWs) and 2. Back-end

services

related to Mobility (or value-added services related mobility)containing

VLF

and HLF.

Part 2 clearly does not have to be specific to H.323. It is a general service related to mobility. Every application that needs mobility may

like

to use these services. This will be addressed in the light of the all

mobile

applications of all questions of all SGs of the ITU-T. So, it is out-of-scope of Q.13/16 because Q.13/16 alone cannot makes this decision.

Please note that Security (AuF) is also needed for the fixed users. So,

this

is a generic service that needs to be developed for both fixed and mobile users. So, it also belongs to the base H.323 spec. That is, any specification related to AuF should be moved to the base H.323 spec as

well

because it belong to both and the standard should be developed

accordingly.

For rapid determination, I would suggest to address part 1 only in the

first

phase.

More specific technical comments will be given for each point once the primary objectives are clarified.

Best regards,

Radhika R. Roy AT&T

-----Original Message----- From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:28 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A cleaned up H.323 Annex H draft uploaded

Hi all,

I have uploaded MD-106 to URL:

ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/Md-106_H323AnnexHDr

aft.zip . The document is a cleaned up version of TD-42 of the Portland meeting and contains only editorial changes(as the template used in the draft document so far was, for some reason, a total mess). The only "exeption" to this is the following correction. Section 8.1 of TD-42 included the text: "Reference points A and B are out of the scope of this Annex.", which has been removed and instead section 8.3 now includes the text: "Reference points B, C and D are out of the scope of this Annex (Hinter is included but only as an option in case that utilization of reference point A is not practical).". The reason for this change is that the text in TD-42 is, as I understand from Mr. Rissanen's comments, a typo and should have mentioned reference points B and C instead of A and B.

---

Jaakko Sundquist * +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere! jaakko.sundquist@nokia.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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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