H.225.0 Annex G conference call
vineet.kumar at INTEL.COM
Wed Aug 19 13:47:06 EDT 1998
My comments are embedded in the email below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC [SMTP:rrroy at ATT.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:24 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call
> Hi Everyone:
> I have few comments on the revised Annex G writeup.
> 1. The title is OK
> 2. The scope is not OK. As we talked last time that the scope should be
> extended to include the following:
> * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain
> * Inter-Gatekeeper Communications Between (Administrative)
[Kumar, Vineet] The scope was decided at the Yokosuka meeting and
further confirmed at he Cannes meeting. Most participants are comfortable
with it. It seems that you are the only one who wants to change the scope.
For companies that are implementing this Annex there is an urgent need to
move ahead and complete the work within the scope agreed at the previous
rapporteur meetings. One compromise might be to create an additional Annex
whose scope is Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a Domain. I believe
that this compromise takes into account your point of view on the scope and
should be acceptable to you.
> 3. APC-1385 provides outlines for the "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications
> within a Domain". The write-up of Annex G should be modified accordingly.
[Kumar, Vineet] The specific diagrams in APC-1385 have been
modelled in the figures of Annex G. Additionally, there has been no specific
examples of protocol limitations from Annex G/APC-1422 that would disallow
deployment of models described in APC-1385
> 4. The items 2 and 3 had been discussed in the last conference call. Are
> going through a circle again?
[Kumar, Vineet] Most of the participants do not agree with you on
items 2 and 3. So, in the interest of moving ahead the compromise I have
suggested in item 2 should be acceptable to you.
> 5. The comments on the remaining text of the document will be reviewed
> the fundamental direction of Annex G is put along the line as pointed out
[Kumar, Vineet] Comments should be reviewed based on the Editor and
Group consensus, and not on the wishes of a specific individual.
> Recent AT&T's proposed contribution has also been submitted to complement
> the write-up in the area of "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications within a
> Thanks and regards,
> Radhika R. Roy
> Tel: +1 732 949 8657
> Email: rrroy at att.com
> > ----------
> > From: Glen Freundlich[SMTP:ggf at lucent.com]
> > Reply To: ggf at lucent.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 3:11 PM
> > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: H.225.0 Annex G conference call
> > <<File: diff0201.zip>>
> > There will be another conference call to discuss H.225.0 Annex G:
> > date: 20 August (Thursday)
> > time: 10:00am Mountain Time (9:00 Pacific, 12:00 Eastern, etc)
> > bridge number: +1 630-224-4444
> > code: 911202
> > duration: 1 hour
> > Tentative agenda:
> > - next call 27 August
> > - review of Santo Wiryaman's proposal
> > - review of Pete Cordell's proposal
> > - review of Radhika Roy's proposal
> > Notes from last call:
> > Most of the call was spent discussing an email from Radhika Roy. Some of
> > the significant points are:
> > - The Annex G title (Communication Between Administrative Domains) was
> > viewed as too restrictive. According to the Yokosuka meeting report,
> > Annex G is to focus on communication between administrative domains.
> > While some folks seem to believe that the currently proposed protocol is
> > suitable for both inter-gatekeeper communication and communication
> > between administrative domains, others seem to believe that these are 2
> > distinct problems.
> > - Annex G should address inter-gatekeeper communication and
> > communication between administrative domains separately.
> > - The current direction of work does not seem to consider all possible
> > architectures (hierarchical, distributed, hybrid), or at least the
> > current Annex G does not adequately describe all possible architectures.
> > In addition, no requirements appear to guide forming Annex G for each of
> > these possible architectures.
> > Mr. Roy has promised a proposal to address some of his concerns.
> > Remember that this work will progress with proposals.
> > For those who were on the last call, please correct me if I've missed
> > something.
> > Glen
> > --
> > Glen Freundlich ggf at lucent.com
> > Lucent Technologies office: +1 303 538 2899
> > 11900 N. Pecos fax: +1 303 538 3907
> > Westminster, Colorado 80234 USA
More information about the sg16-avd