Gateway Decomposition Call Summary and Next Meeting Request

[Ami Amir]

Mark

Can you schedule the call for 9am EST instead of 11?

Thanks

Ami

Mark Reid wrote:

> > ----------
> > From:         Mark Reid[SMTP:MREID at VIDEOSERVER.COM]
> > Sent:         Monday, October 26, 1998 9:02:23 PM
> > To:   ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject:      Gateway Decomposition Call Summary and Next Meeting Request
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >
> Gateway Call Summary 10/20/98 11AM-1PM EDT
>
> Attendees registered for call
> ***********************************
> Bellcore, AT&T, Cisco, Nortel, Lucent, Intel, Siemens, Level 3, Ascend,
> 3COM, IBM, Telia, MCI, NEC, PictureTel, Sun Microsystems, RADVision, Accord,
> Selsius, Madge, AGCS, IDT/Net2Phone, VTEL, Dialogic, NetSpeak, Delta
> Information, Ricochet, Trillium Digital Systems, Teleogy Networks, Univ
> Bremen, Perey Consulting, VideoServer, others
>
> Call purpose summary
> ***************************
> The goal of the audio call was to identify the work items we need to
> complete heading into the November Q14 meeting on H.323 Gateways
> interworking with switched circuit networks.
>
> Agreements reached on call
> **********************************
> 1) Interface A is a high priority item. It is a new protocol and the first
> item of work should be the definition of its scope and requirements. There
> was agreement that Interface A should be media related and not be associated
> with call setup. It was agreed that Interface A would deal with the
> allocation and management of resources used for packet/circuit media
> conversion (e.g. DSP's for modem, fax, transcoding, etc.) It was agreed to
> keep the scope of Interface A within the terms of reference outlined in
> paragraph 3.4.1 of TD89. For example, we are not trying to replace existing
> H.323 functionality with a new protocol.
> 2) We will specify the Interworking of H.323 to SS7/ISUP signaling
> (potentially something similar to Q.699) and the Interworking of H.323 to
> SCN FAS/NFAS signaling. This work will most likely be contained in an H.246
> Annex.
> 3) We will complete H.246 Annex B - the media conversion of H.323 to
> voice/voiceband terminals. (e.g. DTMF to UUI, etc.)
> 4) We agreed to exclude the MC to MP communication definition from the work
> destined for determination at the next Study Group meeting.
>
> Active discussions
> **********************
> 1) What should we do with Interfaces B, C, and D?
>
> Given that the messages passing across these interfaces must reflect all of
> the content of the signaling that the respective signaling functions receive
> from and send to external entities ... are these protocols modified or
> extended ISUP for Interface D, modified or extended Q.931 or QSIG for
> Interface C, and modified or extended H.225 for Interface B? ... or are they
> a new abstract protocol (ABP) that ISUP, FAS/NFAS, and H.225 are converted
> to?
>
> The proponents of the abstract protocol said it would allow the high level
> gateway control logic to be shielded from the H.225/FAS-NFAS/ISUP state
> machines. Others said that too much information would be lost in a
> conversion between H.225/FAS-NFAS/ISUP and an abstract protocol (ABP) and
> that the ABP would end up having all of the fields carried on the H.225,
> FAS-NFAS, and ISUP interfaces.
>
> No conclusion was reached for moving forward.
>
> Nortel suggested with look at specific call scenarios to drive the
> requirements of Interfaces B, C, and D.
>
> General information
> **********************
> BellCore reported that IPDC and SGCP have merged their protocol proposals as
> MGCP. MGCP was introduced into the IETF on 10/19 and according to Nortel, a
> working group is being kicked off in the IETF. There was a discussion on how
> to get the IETF and ITU-T to work together on these protocols but no
> conclusion was reached. MGCP information will be posted to the ITU
> reflector.
>
> Next meeting
> ***************
> I would like to invite you to participate in an audio call, Tuesday November
> 3rd from 11AM to 1PM EST to discuss our continued work plan for gateway
> decomposition.
>
> Please send bridge port requests directly to me (mreid at videoserver.com) by
> Monday November 2nd at 12:00 Noon EST so that I can make the proper
> arrangements. I will send port assignments later that day.
>
> All comments on this summary are welcome!
>
>         Mark