Re: Mob ad hoc group progress

6 Apr 2000

      Hi, Steve:
You are right.
Figure 1 is by no means is finalized. We have taken this as a starting point
for discussion. That does not mean we have to take Figure 1 as it is. In
fact, I am bringing contributions in this area. I will have a different
figure 1 (modified) in my contribution. I will explain all things in the
context of intra-domain mobility management. There will be many more figures
to highlight many things that we think need to be there to make the
intra-zone mobility management complete.
I expect that all people bringing contributions will do the same. Let me
clear this again. Figure 1 of Nokia's contribution MD011 is NOT a complete
one. It is up to as a team to decide when we analyze all facts based on
contributions that are coming for the upcoming conf call.
Similar is the case for Figures 2, 3, and others. These figures are
providing some kind of guidelines or references to streamline our work so
that we can bring contributions along those lines in explaining the things.
In the same token, we will explain VLF and HLF for each case.
Finally, the contributions will explain pros and cons and we will go from
there to decide as a group what makes sense to make standard for H.323
mobility.
I appreciate your note.
Best regards,
Radhika
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Terrill [SMTP:stephen.terrill@ERICSSON.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 4:17 AM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
Hi Roy,
Just a note, I assume that when refering to "figure 1", I understood from
the phone meeting that it was a modified figure 1 as we agreed to as it
wasn´t clear in respect to whether the two subscribers where roaming
and/or home etc.  I trust that was what you were refering to in your
thinking.
Regarding the VLR and GK being co-located, I think that is still a
discussion.
Best Regards,
..//steve
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
...
Hi, Everyone:
We are again not in sink what is going on with respect to progress of
our
...
work. Let me try again.
We have talked about Nokia's contribution MD-011. We have taught that
this
...
provides a reference to start with. In that contribution, we have Figure
1:
...
Intra-zone all H.323 scenario. We have decided that we will go one step
at a
...
time.
Now what does this Figure 1 provides us? We are NOT sure unless we
explain
...
in detail what this scenario means to us. We cannot go to the next step
unless we analyze what the scenario of Figure 1 provides us. It may or
may
...
not provide new insights from H.323 mobility point of view, but it is
our
...
starting point. We have to complete it first before we go for the next
step.
...
In this simple case, a mobile entity will move from its home network to
a
...
foreign network. This also requires mobility management: Change in
network
...
point of attachment and its possible impact in H.323 system.
Once we complete Figure 1, we will go for the next one: Figure 2
Inter-Zone
...
all H.323 scenario. Of course, this is a complicated one to provide
better
...
scenario for mobility management: Change in network point attachment +
Change in zone (logical) point of attachment as well.
Then Figure 3: Inter-Domain all H.323 scenario.
And so on ...
If we do not do this, we might again go into circle.
I guess that this should be very clear to everyone.  I would assume that
people should bring contributions along this line: Figure 1, 2, ....etc.
Let us not by-pass any step for sake of clarity and completeness.
A side note: We have defined VLF and HLF. VLF may be assumed to be
co-located within the GK. But let people explain the interactions
including
...
VLF and HLF the way they prefer in their contributions. The
contributions
...
themselves will justify how VLF and HLF should perform their functions.
Let
...
us not mandate anything beforehand unless things are explained in the
contributions.
I like to see all members provide their comments on this.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 6:06 AM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
Hi all,
Once again there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about the terms
we
...
...
are
using. First of all, we did not make it altogether clear in the last
teleconference, what is meant by a scenario. My contribution on the
issue
...
...
tried to group both the "call scenarios" and the "location management
scenarios" into one set of scenarios. We did notice during the
teleconference that this was not an adequate approach and now some of
the
...
...
problems occuring in this email discussion reflect that.
For example, when Radhika is talking about starting with the
intra-zone
...
...
scenario, I'm not quite sure what he is meaning. I understand that the
"call
scenario" he is talking about, is the one in which both terminals are
registered to the same gatekeeper. However, this "call scenario" in
itself
...
...
does not really bring anything new to H.323 unless there is something
that
...
...
we need to address with the "location management scenarios". Now,
while
...
...
the
"call scenario" does indeed fall into the category of intra-zone
communications, the "location management scenario" for finding the
address
...
...
of the B-subscriber of the call might not, i.e. the VLF and HLF that
need
...
...
to
be contacted may not be located in the same zone or even domain.
Furthermore, we haven't even decided that the VLF and HLF should be a
part
...
...
of any zone. I know that most of us actually think that the VLF is
always
...
...
located with the gatekeeper, but so far we haven't made that decision
and
...
...
certainly we haven't coupled the HLF functionality always with the
gatekeeper. Thus it is quite unclear what is meant by intra-zone
"location
...
...
management scenarios" and I would suggest that we do not even try to
define
this term. Instead intra vs inter domain "location management
scenarios"
...
...
make much more sence.
(Note that I'm using the terms "call scenario" and "location
management
...
...
scenario" quite freely here. If we want to use such terms, they
definitely
...
...
must be clearly defined.)
Also, I would like to point out that talking about intra-zone,
inter-zone,
...
...
etc. scenarios, is actually not what was originally meant by a
scenario.
...
...
The
idea to introduce scenarios into the H.323 Mobility work came from
Tiphon,
...
...
where 5 different scenarios are identified. These scenarios do not
take
...
...
into
account, whether the call (or other connection) takes place inside one
zone
(intra-zone), between two zones (inter-zone) or between domains
(inter-domain). The scenarios in Tiphon simply state which network
types
...
...
are
involved in the connection, e.g. Tiphon scenario 1 is the VoIP-to-SCN
scenario, Tiphon scenario 2 is the SCN-to-VoIP scenario, etc. These
were
...
...
the
kind of scenarios I thought we were trying to identify in the last
teleconference. Of cource, each of this kind of scenarios may involve
calls
that are intra-zone, inter-zone or inter-domain calls, but we
shouldn't
...
...
call
(no pun intended) these different call models as scenarios.
We have now chosen the all-H.323 scenario as the first one to examine
(although we didn't even know what it means). In my mind this means
that:
...
...

  We only examine call cases, in which no gateways are included.

  We examine gatekeeper discovery, registration and location

updating
cases, in which the user is accessing the H.323 system either in
his/her
...
...
home network (e.g. domain) or a visited network (e.g. domain).

  We examine call establishment and call release cases, in which

the
...
...
A-subscriber is either in his/her home network (domain) or in a
visited
...
...
network (domain).

  We examine call establishment and call release cases, in which

the
...
...
B-subscriber is either in his/her home network (domain) or in a
visited
...
...
network (domain). Note that the call can be intra-zone, inter-zone or
inter-domain irrespective of whether the B-subscriber is in home or
visited
network.

  We examine mid-call scenarios (e.g. some supplementary

services),
...
...
in
which the user (either A- or B-subscriber) is either in his/her home
network
or in a visited network.

  In the context of H.323 Annex H we do not address the

inteworking
...
...
functionalities (IWFs) between the HLF/VLF/AuF and some non-H.323
network,
...
...
unless some other document (such as H.246 Annex E) proposes additions
to
...
...
H.323 Annex H. (Note that, when we start work on some other scenarios
in
...
...
the
future, we probably will have to take the IWFs into account.)
Other issues that need to be addressed are at least the definitions
for
...
...
the
home/visited network/domain/zone/gatekeeper, because it seems to me
that
...
...
some members are already using some of these terms in ways that
already
...
...
point to certain solutions, on which we have not yet agreed.
I will try to work out a suitable contribution for the next
teleconference
...
...
to clarify these issues properly. If you have some comments to this
mail,
...
...
please respond. I know that this is a long posting with quite a lot of
issues in it and I'm sure that I haven't explained myself too clearly
in
...
...
all
parts of it, so please ask.

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

-----Original Message-----
From:   EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM]
Sent:   04. April 2000 15:31
To:     ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject:        Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
Paul:
Thanks for clarifications.
In the last conf call, we even cannot complete the simple intra-zone
(intra-network, inter-network) scenarios first. You are right that we
should
concentrate on the scenarios (Registration procedures, Gatekeeper
discovery,
Location update, Call establishment, Mid-Call scenarios (e.g.
supplementary
services, user interaction, Call release).
Definitely, we can go further: Inter-Zone (intra-domain) scenarios as
well
...
...
if we can agree on the first one. AT&T contributions already contain
many
...
...
of
those aspects. Hope to bring new contributions explaining further in
both
...
...
scenarios.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
...
-----Original Message-----
From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [SMTP:lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM]
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 3:52 PM
To:   ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject:      Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
Radhika,
Conf call is for Annex H only as before...nothing has
changed...change
...
...
can
...
only take place when the group agrees.  Please do not read into the
email
...
more than what it says.  I was only trying to highlight, in a high
level
...
...
...
report, the plight of Annex I since nothing much has moved in it,
and it
...
...
...
is
an Annex which together with Annex H covers the mobility aspects.
As
...
...
far
...
as
Annex E is concerned, the point was that the  mapping was the work
of
...
...
one
...
individual or one company, thus could have errors or omissions (more
than
...
likely)...again only highlighting to people to check out this
mapping.
...
...
...
Contributions for next conf call to be for All H.323 intra-network
scenario
for:
                Registration procedures, Gatekeeper discovery,
Location
...
...
...
            update, Call establishment, Mid-Call scenarios (e.g.

supplementary services,
                user interaction), Call release.  Also contributions
on
...
...
...
any
impacts on the already specified architecture in the light of the
present
...
work are welcome.
Paul
            -----Original Message-----
            From:   Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM]
            Sent:   01 April 2000 00:00
            To:     ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
            Subject:        Re: Mob ad hoc group progress

            Hi, Paul and Mobility Group:

            I like to see that it should be clarified via emails

whether
H.323 Annex I
                and H.246 Annex E will be a part of the conference
call.
...
...
...
My
personal
                preference is not to discuss annexes I and E during
the
...
...
...
conference call
                although email discussions will be preferred.
            If Annex I and E are included in the conference

call, I
...
...
...
like
to see the
                actual time in the agenda when these items will be
discussed
so that people
                can best use their time in joining the particular
time
...
...
...
slot
for each Annex.
            The proposal is as follows:

            1. The upcoming conference call to be dedicated for

H.323
...
Annex H.
                2. Let both editors of H.323 Annex I and H.246 Annex
E
...
...
...
propose via emails
                whether any issues to addressed.
                3. If annex I and E are included in the agenda of
the
...
...
...
upcoming conference
                call, I like to the time slots when these annexes
will
...
...
be
...
discussed so that
                people can join the particular time slots of
interest.
...
...
...
Alternatively,
                separate conference calls can be arranged for
annexes I
...
...
...
and
E.
                4. Are editors or any members of the mobility group
sure
...
...
...
what would be the
                scope of work (I guess that Annex E is stable for
now -
...
...
...
thanks to the
                editor) for those annexes?
            Paul: Would you please clarify what specific area

that
...
...
we
...
need to discuss
                for the next conference call for H.323 Annex H? My
guess
...
...
...
is
that we may
                start with intra-zone communication first. I am
planning
...
...
...
to
bring
                contribution(s) describing this for mobility
management:
...
...
...
Discovery,
                Registration, Location Updates, and Call
Establishment.
...
...
...
            I would appreciate comments form all members.

            Best regards,

            Radhika R. Roy
            AT&T
            H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group

Roy, Radhika R, ALARC

tags (0)

participants (1)