-----Original Message-----
From: Lyons, Terry
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:06 PM
To: 'imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org'; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Cc: Lyons, Terry
Subject: H323 version labeling - FW: h323 Annex E support
Maybe we should talk in terms of dot releases,
eg. v3.0 and v4.0 are the official ITU-T Recommendations
whereas v3.1 and v4.1 are the Implementers Guide changes.
The need is to be clear about what H323 version an endpoint
conforms to or a protocol stack supports. Calling different things,
eg. H323 (11/2000) and H323 IG (6/2001), by the same name "v4"
can lead to misunderstanding.
- TLyons@sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Long [mailto:plong@ipdialog.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support
Paul,
No, the concensus was that the IG is NOT normative because the ITU does
not
sanction its "normativeness" in any way, but it appears that we have made
a
de facto decision to informally pretend that it is normative. I know for
sure that the H.324 IGs were NOT normative. In fact, the H.324 IG is what
its name indicates--an actual guide for implementors, not an corregendum,
which is what the H.323 IG really is (it's also an addendum, but that's
another issue altogether). I don't know about T.120 or H.320, but I'd be
willing to bet that their IGs, if they had any, were also NOT normative.
Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:27 AM
To: Lyons, Terry
Cc: imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org
Subject: [imtch323implementors] Re: h323 Annex E support
Terry,
Arguably, the IG is not normative. However, since the first day, ITU-T
SG16
has used the implementers guides as a normative texts. This is done, not
only with H.323, but also with T.120, H.320, H.324, etc.
One could ignore the corrections applied to the IG, but doing so is quite
dangerous. You can't simply ignore the changes made via the IG, because
SG16 changes the ASN.1, not just add fields, and those changes will appear
in the next revision of the Recommendations. Of course, we try to limit
changes, but we usually do make a number of changes after the
Recommendation
is first approved and people start to finding problems. There are no
plans
to change the v4 syntax any further-- and I will fight any change-- but
you
can see the history of changes made for v4 on Packetizer. The last
approved
change was June 2001, yet the Recommendation was approved in November
2000.
It would be nice if we could first get implementations and then approve
the
Recommendation in a more solid state. Unfortunately, that's not possible
for several reasons:
1) Companies do not want to spend engineering resources on a moving
target
2) The standards work is usually way ahead of implementation
3) No matter how hard we try, there's likely to be something we miss
4) This is the way it has always been done-- tradition is hard to change
I presently have no intent to move the IG to series of amendments. We
have
been using this approach for 5 years with good results. Changing the text
would require drafting a number of different documents and that process is
also subject to error. I'm not opposed to it, but I doubt we'll find the
volunteers to write all of the amendments: it's boring, non-rewarding
work.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons@sonusnet.com>
To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej@packetizer.com>; "Lyons, Terry"
<TLyons@sonusnet.com>
Cc: <imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support
We all recognize, don't we, that the Implementers Guide
is not a normative ITU Recommendation. The way that the ITU
changes things is through an amendment or subsequent edition.
I believe there was some discussion of just this point in the past.
The IG is best understood as a indication of what is coming next.
The correct statment is that the fields are in v4, not v3.
- TLyons@sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:44 PM
To: Lyons, Terry
Cc: imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org
Subject: Re: h323 Annex E support
Terry,
They were added to H.323v3 via the H.323 Implementers Guide approved in
November 2000.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyons, Terry" <TLyons@sonusnet.com>
To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: <imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support
Hmmm ... the fields are NOT in the ITU publication H.225.0(09/99)
nor in the "Draft H.323 Core Document" H.225.0 Version 3 tabulated at
http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/
which links to
930
Endpoint ::= SEQUENCE
{
nonStandardData NonStandardParameter OPTIONAL,
aliasAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL,
callSignalAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress
OPTIONAL,
rasAddress SEQUENCE OF TransportAddress
OPTIONAL,
endpointType EndpointType OPTIONAL,
tokens SEQUENCE OF ClearToken OPTIONAL,
cryptoTokens SEQUENCE OF CryptoH323Token
OPTIONAL,
priority INTEGER(0..127) OPTIONAL,
remoteExtensionAddress SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL,
destExtraCallInfo SEQUENCE OF AliasAddress OPTIONAL,
...
}
- TLyons@sonusnet.com +1 732 625-3003 ext 212
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: RE: h323 Annex E support
C. S.,
Those fields are also in v3. See the ASN.1 file here:
http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/h2250v3.asn
As for how a v2 device will work, Annex E describes how the endpoint
may
initiate a call with Annex E and then fall back to TCP if it is
determined
that Annex E is not supported. Of course, this is less efficient in
terms
of call setup time, so using the v3/v4 fields are preferred.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <subbac@hss.hns.com>
To: "Paul, Manoj" <mpaul@trillium.com>
Cc: <imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:48 AM
Subject: [imtch323implementors] RE: h323 Annex E support
Hi paul,
These "alternateTransportAddress" and "useSpecifiedTransport" fields
are
present in h323V4.
In Case of H323V3 how to mention.
regards
C. S. Rao
"Paul, Manoj" <mpaul@trillium.com> on 01/07/2002 01:49:59 PM
To: Subbarao Chanduri/HSSBLR, imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org
cc:
Subject: RE: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support
Rao:
GK can indicate it's Annex E transport addresses in
"alternateTransportAddress"
field. It also indicates in "useSpecifiedTransport" to use TCP/Annex
E.
-Manoj Paul
Trillium Digital Systems (Intel).
-----Original Message-----
From: subbac@hss.hns.com [mailto:subbac@hss.hns.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:37 PM
To: imtch323implementors@mail.imtc.org
Cc: subbac@hss.hns.com
Subject: [imtch323implementors] h323 Annex E support
Hi,
If Gatekeeper supports H323 Annex E.
inresponse to Admission Request from an endpoint,
through ACF, how gatekeeper informs the endpoint that it is
ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/till_0012/9909_Gen/h225v3_decided_wcm_9
90
listening
on
two different Transport Addresses.
i.e. one transport address (TA1) for Annex E messages.
other transport Address (TA2) for TCP
messages.
As there is only one field in ACF to indicate the destination call
signalling address, how endpoint come to know
about the different addresses GK is listening.
regards
C. S. Rao
Lyons, Terry
Paul E. Jones