Hi all,

I fully agree with the arguments previously expressed by Ernst Orvath for H.22x in the specific context (H.22X being an enhanced version of H.225 annex G v2 draft). So I vote for H.22x.

If such this MM protocol becomes a standard as an annex of H.225, It would not be possible to make it evolve in order to meet the requirements of multimedia services THAT WOULD NOT BE call related. This doesn't fit our decision to design a generic MM protocol. This justifies the "documentation" advantage as mentionned by Ernst.

Anyway, considering the short time remaining until the plenary meeting, I would suggest to discuss also about the protocol design itself.

Cordially

François Bougant France Telecom

-----Message d'origine----- De : Meyer, Greg W [mailto:greg.w.meyer@INTEL.COM] Envoyé : mercredi 23 janvier 2002 19:21 À : ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Objet : Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

Forwarded per Mr. Roy's request...

-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:12 AM To: Horvath Ernst; ITU-SG16@echo.jf.INTEL.COM Cc: Meyer, Greg W Subject: RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1

( Mr. Meyer: I would appreciate if you would kindly forward my message to the SG16 reflector.)

Hi, Mr. Ernst:

I understand your points. Now the question is: Do we want to kill or deprecate H.225.0 Annex G in the longer term through standardization of H.22x?

Let us debate the pros and cons of H.22x from technical point of view (I will withdraw my objections to H.22x if sufficient technical arguments are provided). This is the fundamental debate for all of us in the SG16.

So far, I have voted for enhancement of H.225.0 Annex G for mobility (because H.22x differs from H.225.0 Annex G by only 2/3 messages and does not say why it has to be fundamentally different from H.225.0 Annex G.)

Best regards, Radhika R. Roy rrroy@att.com