H.225.0 Annex G conference call

Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC rrroy at ATT.COM
Thu Aug 20 10:34:27 EDT 1998

Hi Everyone:

It is a complete surprise!

Does the ITU-T SG16 mandates that there must NOT be any standards for the
"Inter-Zone" Communications in a given domain for H.323?

The inter-zone communications in a given domain was discussed in all
conference calls. It ia an accepted fact that we do need a standard for the
'Inter-Zone" communications in a given domain. No opposition was raised by
anyone. Mr. Wiryaman, VideoServer, made this point very clearly to all of us
in support of APC-1385. In fact, Mr. Wiryaman later further clearified this
in his email. No opposition was raised by anyone.

Why do we participate in biweekly conference calls and send our emails and
waste our time, if it is thought that we have to go in a cirlcle?

In the last Cannes H.323 ITU-T SG16 meeting, it was completely realized that
no work would go forward if the both inter-zone and inter-domain were NOT

> In Yokosuka H.323 ITU-T SG16 meeting, the very narrow area of standard
> development was opposed, and APC-1385 is a proof. No one has given a
> mandate that the so-called hierarchical border-GK type concept that has a
> very limited applicability will be the ONLY model that everyone of us has
> to follow BLINDLY without questions. And Annex-G MUST always be written
> accordingly as if it has become everybody's UNQUESTIONABLE holy mandate,
> and ignore everything whatever is talked in the bi-weekly conference calls
> and emails.
It is the time for moving forward!

H.323 has become one the most important standards that ITU-T ever produced
because of its universal use in transport indpendent (i.e., not tied to IP,
ATM, FR, or other transport protocols) manner.

In inter-GK communications, the same UNIVERSALITY is required, NOT to limit
it by raising the so-called "brick walls" that create opprtunities for
proprietary implementations.

We have now clear choices:

Do we want to stall the standard works that do NOT address both "inter-zone"
and inter-domain" communications? Or,
Do we want to move forward addressing the both "inter-zone" and
inter-domain" communications?

If we stall the standard works for the inter-GK communications, many people
may loose interest in participating H.323 ITU-T SG16 meetings, and other
forums and standard bodies will take those works. And it will NOT be in the
best interst of the ITU-T members. (I do not know for sure whether all
companies that participate in H.323 meetings are the members of ITU-T).

Therefore, it is an appeal to all of us that we should develop our standards
that become UNIVERSAL for all architectural  models.

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:         Wednesday, August 19, 1998 1:18 PM
> Subject:      Re: H.225.0 Annex G conference call
> Please see my responses editted in below.
> Regards,
> Glen
> Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC wrote:
> >
> > 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
> Did we have consensus on that opinion? If so, I'll change the text and I
> apologize for missing that. I remember saying that the stake I was
> placing in the ground was that the protocol is the same for both of
> these (and some text in the annex states that). Until we have something
> that shows otherwise I see no reason to change the basic direction of
> the annex.
> In Yokosuka we set the focus of Annex G to be communication between
> administrative domains. If we start broadening the scope we run the risk
> of delaying the annex.
> >
> > 3. APC-1385 provides outlines for the "Inter-Gatekeeper Communications
> > within a Domain". The write-up of Annex G should be modified
> accordingly.
> > 4. The items 2 and 3 had been discussed in the last conference call. Are
> we
> > going through a circle again?
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> --
> 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 mailing list