H.225.0 Annex G conference call

[Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC]

Kindly see a reply addressed to Mr. G. Freundlich's email.

Regards,
Radhika R. Roy

> ----------
> From:         Kumar, Vineet[SMTP:vineet.kumar at INTEL.COM]
> Reply To:     Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> 16
> Sent:         Wednesday, August 19, 1998 12:47 PM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call
>
> My comments are embedded in the email below.
>
> vineet
>
> > -----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)
> > Domains
>         [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
> > we
> > 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
> > when
> > the fundamental direction of Annex G is put along the line as pointed
> out
> > above.
>         [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
> > Domain".
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > Radhika R. Roy
> > AT&T
> > 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
> > >
>