Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your email and your concerns.
We are trying to make progress on an agreed simulation condition. We just
got the response from Mr. Baese on the simulation conditions we sent on
12/21/2000. It appears there are still several controversial issues (please
see my other email). It does take quite some time to run the simulation, and
we understand the meeting deadline is approaching. We will do our best to
work it out with the Siemens team and hope we can resolve the issues and
reach an agreement as early as possible.
I will keep everyone updated on the progress. If you (or any other
interested parties) have any comments on the issues, we would love to hear
your opinions and suggestions.
Adam Li
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:36 PM
To: Baese Gero; adamli@ICSL.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I
Mr. Bäse and Mr. Li,
You will have to refresh my memory on this, but was Mr. Skran's
request that
you produce test results before the meeting in March or produce a
test plan
by that time?
I would guess that, since I see these postings to the SG16 mailing list,
that little cooperation is taking place between the two sides on Annex I.
Is that an accurate assumption?
I hope that we can reach some agreements on this before and during that
meeting. I'd like to see some of the scenery in Tasmania :-)
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baese Gero" <Gero.X.Baese@MCHP.SIEMENS.DE>
To: <ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: H.323 Annex I
Dear Mr. Li, experts,
as you wished we kindly reviewed your paper. Here are our conclusions:
* it does not incorporate both the conditions used in your
simulation
and the scenario we proposed in APC-1993 correctly
* it does not incorporate the decisions of the group at the Geneva
meeting
* relations to practical usage are missing
To replenish this paper with all the necessary information would take to
long.
We are running out of time. Therefor we completed APC-1993 with the few
missing values out of your paper. An additional section with the proposed
internet tests is now included. Please be so kind to supplement
this section
with your suggestions. We hope you can finally agree on that
joint scenario
document. Again, it is very important to have a complete scenario
instead of
a collection of values to make our work tangible for everybody within the
group.
A few points are still under discussion. Using a rate control for example
does
not make much sense in our case. It is not part of any standard and can be
optimized to support one or the other method.
To regiment the length of slices is only in favour of the UCLA proposal.
Therefore
we don't want to see this restriction within the test scenario.
It is still impossible to implement the UCLA proposal with the documents
available.
We were asking you several times concerning technical obscurities but your
answer
is still missing.
We are supposed to use the standard ITU-T code of H.263 for the tests. As
far
as we aware there is no official version including all necessary parts of
H.263.
That is to say only H.26L can be used for the tests. If you know a place
where
the appropriate software is available please provide us with the link.
Best Wishes
Gero Baese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gero Bäse
Siemens AG Tel.: +49 89 636 53193
Corporate Technology Fax: +49 89 636 52393
Networks and Multimediacommunication CT IC 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
<<APC-1993r2.doc>>