Hi, Mike and All:
I did not have the time go through the whole document yet. However, a quick look into the document provides me to point out about the scope as follows:
1. The contributions were provided for mapping of H.323 QOS over the network layer QOS. For example, IETF's DiffServ, IntServ/RSVP, and MPLS, and ATM QOS classes: CBR, VBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VRB, and ABR. Those contributions were accepted in the last Red Bank (Oct'99) meeting. Accordingly, the then editor Rich Bowen produced the TD in the last SG16 meeting.
So, the scope of H.323 QOS mapping over the network layer QOS (IP, ATM) shall be there.
However, if you have any disagreement over the decision made in the last Red Bank meeting, please submit a contribution in the upcoming OSAKA meeting (May'00), we can discuss. Until the decision is made based on contributions, the scope of the document shall remain the same as submitted by Mr. Rich Bowen.
2. So far the backward compatibility is concerned, it shall not only consider Appendix II, but it shall also consider ATM QOS provided in H.323 Annex C. Accordingly, both backward compatibilities should be included as per norm of the ITU standards.
BTW, if you would keep the text the way I suggested, I would think that I did not have to provide my comments as stated above.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy, AT&T
PS: I am yet to finish reading the whole document. Hope to provide more comments later.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [SMTP:mikebuckley@ATTMAIL.COM] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:31 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.323 Annex N draft
Attached is the first draft of the new Annex N of H.323. This was issued at last week's meeting as TD126 of WP2 but the attached version includes some further minor revisions and additions of informational material (in the Appendices) which needs further review in the light of the adoption of the generic QoS bearer descriptor.
Comments and contributions welcome.
Mike Buckley (editor) mikebuckley@44comms.com +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) << File: [No Description] >>
Hi Radhika,
Thanks for your quick comments.
The agreement last week was that the H.323 mechanisms should operate independently of transport mechanism. This is included in the requirements. So all the mechanisms you list are included.
The backward compatibility is an important issue and one we should discuss carefully as to its implications. In principle I agree with you, backward compatibility with existing H.323 mechanisms should be an important factor. I am not yet sure yet what the implications of this are in the QoS area.
Mike
____________________ Begin Original Message ___________________________ Date: Mon Feb 21 17:56:43 -0500 2000 From: internet!ATT.COM!rrroy (Roy, Radhika R, ALARC) Subject: Re: H.323 Annex N draft To: internet!MAILBAG.INTEL.COM!ITU-SG16 Content-Type: Text Content-Length: 2192
Hi, Mike and All:
I did not have the time go through the whole document yet. However, a quick look into the document provides me to point out about the scope as follows:
1. The contributions were provided for mapping of H.323 QOS over the network layer QOS. For example, IETF's DiffServ, IntServ/RSVP, and MPLS, and ATM QOS classes: CBR, VBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VRB, and ABR. Those contributions were accepted in the last Red Bank (Oct'99) meeting. Accordingly, the then editor Rich Bowen produced the TD in the last SG16 meeting.
So, the scope of H.323 QOS mapping over the network layer QOS (IP, ATM) shall be there.
However, if you have any disagreement over the decision made in the last Red Bank meeting, please submit a contribution in the upcoming OSAKA meeting (May'00), we can discuss. Until the decision is made based on contributions, the scope of the document shall remain the same as submitted by Mr. Rich Bowen.
2. So far the backward compatibility is concerned, it shall not only consider Appendix II, but it shall also consider ATM QOS provided in H.323 Annex C. Accordingly, both backward compatibilities should be included as per norm of the ITU standards.
BTW, if you would keep the text the way I suggested, I would think that I did not have to provide my comments as stated above.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy, AT&T
PS: I am yet to finish reading the whole document. Hope to provide more comments later.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Buckley [SMTP:mikebuckley@ATTMAIL.COM] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:31 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.323 Annex N draft
Attached is the first draft of the new Annex N of H.323. This was issued at last week's meeting as TD126 of WP2 but the attached version includes some further minor revisions and additions of informational material (in the Appendices) which needs further review in the light of the adoption of the generic QoS bearer descriptor.
Comments and contributions welcome.
Mike Buckley (editor) mikebuckley@44comms.com +44-1457-877718 (T) +44-1457-877721 (F) << File: [No Description] >>
participants (2)
-
Mike Buckley -
Roy, Radhika R, ALARC