Tunneling in FACILITY

Sengodan Senthil NRC/Boston sengodan at NASBPD01BS.NTC.NOKIA.COM
Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 EST 1998


Pete,

Your interpretation of the sentence would permit us to achieve what we want to do with no rewording. As Martin mentioned, we are trying to use the tokens and cryptoTokens field that comes with all H.225.0 message UUIEs to provide security services for H.245 messages. This then implies that whenever a H.245 message is to be sent, there is a "need" for transmission of a Q.931 message, since there is a "need" for using the tokens and cryptoTokens field of the Q.931 message UUIE. With that interpretation, we are set. Thanks.

Regards,
Senthil
 ----------
From: Mailing list for parties associ
To: ITU-SG16
Subject: Re: Tunneling in FACILITY
Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 3:59PM


The point is what we should do with the H.245 tunneling mode when there is
no Facility message to be sent but we still want to secure the tunneled
message with the ClearText and CryptoTokens.

Idea is to send "dummy" information in the facility message containing at
least some "useless" information. However, when the facility message would
empty as specified in H.323v2 section 8.2.1 then the CryptoTokens and
ClearTokens could not be used.

Martin.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dipl.-Inf.                     Phone: +49 89 636-46201
| Martin Euchner                 Fax  : +49 89 636-48000
| Siemens AG
| ZT IK 3           mailto:Martin.Euchner at mchp.siemens.de
|
| Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
| 81730 Muenchen
| __________________
| Germany
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. November 1998 12:48
> To:   ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject:      Re: Tunneling in FACILITY
>
> Senthil,
>
> I think if what you are doing needs you send tokens etc., then the only
> way to do this is to send a Q.931 message, which means that you need to
> send a Q.931 message!  Therefore I think the original version of the
> sentence still holds.
>
> Or perhaps I am missing something!
>
> Regards,
>
> Pete
> =================================
> Pete Cordell
> BT Labs
> E-Mail: pete.cordell at bt-sys.bt.co.uk
> Tel: +44 1473 646436
> Fax: +44 1473 645499
> =================================
>
>
> >----------
> >From:  Sengodan Senthil
> >NRC/Boston[SMTP:sengodan at NASBPD01BS.NTC.NOKIA.COM]
> >Reply To:      Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> >16
> >Sent:  25 November 1998 21:37
> >To:    ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> >Subject:       Tunneling in FACILITY
> >
> >Folks,
> >
> >Section 8.2.1 of H.323 states:
> >
> >"If tunneling is being utilized and there is no need for transmission
> >of a Q.931 message at the time an H.245 message must be transmitted,
> >then a FACILITY message shall be sent with 'h323-message-body' set to
> >'empty'."
> >
> >I would like to know - for the case where no Q.931 message needs to be
> >sent  - if there are any negative implications of setting the
> >'h323-message-body' to 'facility' with 'reason' set to
> >'undefinedReason'. This would enable the use of several fields that are
> >available within the 'Facility-UUIE' structure - such as 'tokens' and
> >'cryptotokens' - which would not be available if 'h323-message-body' is
> >set to 'empty'.
> >
> >A rewording of the sentence as below would enable this:
> >
> >"If tunneling is .... a FACILITY message shall be sent and the
> >'h323-message-body' should be set to 'empty'."
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> > - Senthil
> >
> >Senthil Sengodan
> >Nokia Research Center, Boston
> >



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list