Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC
rrroy at ATT.COM
Sat Aug 29 13:49:31 EDT 1998
We are now enclosing very important documents via emails for our H.323
inter-GK conference calls. The number of documents will be increasing very
soon. For example, 2 from VideoServer (Santo W.), 1 from BT (Pete C.), 2
from AT&T (Radhika R.), and 1 from Madge (Andrew D.).
Now we have problems to refer each other's documents (If you read Mr. A.
Draper's recent document, one may easily feel it). Each document contains a
wealth of information. Let us preserve this valuable information so that we
can keep refering each document even when we finish our conference calls
after next week.
The way I see that we need to use the ID for each enclosed document is as
1. Each enclosed document should contain: Title, Author's name, Company
Name, and Date.
2. If possible, the file name of the document (e.g., xxx.doc, etc).
Does this proposal make sense?
Thanks and regards,
Radhika R. Roy
> From: Andrew Draper WVdevmt-WS[SMTP:adraper at DEV.MADGE.COM]
> Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 10:12 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Communications between Administrative domains
> <<File: ResolveGK.doc>>
> I attach my proposal. This specifies a method of finding a suitable
> element given the destinationAddress field in an LRQ or SETUP message.
> This is
> partly derived from Santo Wiryaman's proposal, and is partly tightening up
> language in the existing spec.
> I have expanded the scope of the LCF message slightly to allow a border
> to use the responses to choose from a set of border elements which are all
> to route the call.
> Andrew Draper - Principal Development Engineer - WAVE Software
> Madge Networks, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks.
> mailto:adraper at dev.madge.com phone:+44 1753 661329
> pgp fingerprint D6 ED 72 4F 96 BB CA 2D 68 74 4C E0 CB B9 0B 3F
More information about the sg16-avd