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>>