Re: Third party registration/group registration
sorry,...
Hi Chris,
My undstanding of "third-party" registration is the same as yours. But, in some applications a registration by the IWF may not be on its own behalf. H.323v4 provides this feature (a way to bypass the UDP packet size limitation) for this same reason.
Does it make sense to have this?, If no, then why not?
SupportedProtocols ::= CHOICE { nonStandardData NonStandardParameter, h310 H310Caps, h320 H320Caps, h321 H321Caps, h322 H322Caps, h323 H323Caps, h324 H324Caps, voice ......., SIP SIPCaps }
regards,
charles -----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@isdn-comms.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:41 AM To: Agboh, Charles Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
Charles,
Wrong in my opinion, but I would hope other experts would express their opinions too! The problem is I'm not sure whether this is a question of understanding or of detailed definition of the phrase "third party" in this context. My understanding of the phrase "third party registration" would be one H.323 entity registering at a gatekeeper on behalf of other H.323 entities. My understanding of the word "registration" of this context is that it can only apply to H.323 entities. In this context the IWF can be considered to be at the extreme edge of the H.323 network, so any "registration" it does is on its own behalf. Maybe what you actually want is some equivalent to the supportedPrefixes that arrived in version 2, for SIP gateways. Whatever we agree you want, though, I think it is worth trying to reach some consensus among experts in this group as to what the phrase "third party" means in this context - as your understanding and mine are clearly in disagreement.
Regards, Chris
"Agboh, Charles" wrote:
Chris,
There are applications where an IWF can register an EP from one domain
into
another. This allows automatic visibility of EP from one domain from another. In this case the IWF is registering not only itself but other
EPs.
For this scenario, the third-party entity is the IWF, right?
regards,
charles
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Charles,
My undstanding of "third-party" registration is the same as yours. But, in some applications a registration by the IWF may not be on its own behalf.
These two sentences contradict each other. Please reread my explanation of my understanding, as it is impossible for you to agree with it and believe what you have written in the second sentence above. Unless I misunderstand your definition of an "IWF", which I take to be synonymous with a "gateway" as defined in the H.323 series of standards.
H.323v4 provides this feature (a way to bypass the UDP packet size limitation) for this same reason.
Does it make sense to have this?, If no, then why not?
SupportedProtocols ::= CHOICE { nonStandardData NonStandardParameter, h310 H310Caps, h320 H320Caps, h321 H321Caps, h322 H322Caps, h323 H323Caps, h324 H324Caps, voice ......., SIP SIPCaps }
This may make sense (and is what I meant when I referred to "supportedPrefixes"). If this is a way forward that you believe would be useful for SIP gateways I would encourage you to write a formal proposal to an ITU SG16 experts meeting on this basis.
Regards, Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp@isdn-comms.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:41 AM To: Agboh, Charles Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
Charles,
Wrong in my opinion, but I would hope other experts would express their opinions too! The problem is I'm not sure whether this is a question of understanding or of detailed definition of the phrase "third party" in this context. My understanding of the phrase "third party registration" would be one H.323 entity registering at a gatekeeper on behalf of other H.323 entities. My understanding of the word "registration" of this context is that it can only apply to H.323 entities. In this context the IWF can be considered to be at the extreme edge of the H.323 network, so any "registration" it does is on its own behalf. Maybe what you actually want is some equivalent to the supportedPrefixes that arrived in version 2, for SIP gateways. Whatever we agree you want, though, I think it is worth trying to reach some consensus among experts in this group as to what the phrase "third party" means in this context - as your understanding and mine are clearly in disagreement.
Regards, Chris
"Agboh, Charles" wrote:
Chris,
There are applications where an IWF can register an EP from one domain
into
another. This allows automatic visibility of EP from one domain from another. In this case the IWF is registering not only itself but other
EPs.
For this scenario, the third-party entity is the IWF, right?
regards,
charles
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
participants (2)
-
Agboh, Charles -
Chris Wayman Purvis