H.GCP draft uploaded

Kumar, Vineet vineet.kumar at INTEL.COM
Thu Apr 15 16:37:02 EDT 1999

I agree with Mike in using H.245 between MGC and MG. SDP is essentially used
for advertising loosely coupled sessions, so it does not have the
functionality necessary to be considered in H.GCP. Also, H.GCP must re-use
H.323 components whenever possible.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Buckley [mailto:mikebuckley at ATTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: H.GCP draft uploaded


I don't know whether this is the right place to comment on the Draft.  I
have also
copied some of these comments to the megaco list.

I would like to see the use of SDP between the MGC and MG added to the
issues list.  My understanding is that the symantics and syntax of SDP are
different from H.245OLC.  Use of SDP in H.gcp will therefore involve a
of the information sent in H.245 between endpoints.  This will add
complexity and latency.  In addition, all the features of H.245 I believe
cannot be
presently supported in SDP.  For maximum efficiency and flexibility
I think the mechanism used to convey capabilities should mirror the
and syntax of H.245OLC.  I don't believe there is any extra overhead in
adopting this approach over SDP.  The coding used may be different from PER

I think this also fits in with the list of H.gcp requirements where it is
stated that
all the features of H.245 should be supported.


____________________ Begin Original Message
Date: Tue Apr 13 08:57:37 -0400 1999
From: internet!VIDEOSERVER.COM!bhill (Bryan Hill)
Subject: H.GCP draft uploaded
Content-Type: Text
Content-Length: 367

Mr. Okubo,
Please find a version of HGCP.doc and HGCP.zip that I have uploaded into the
ptel incoming site.  These are drafts of the contribution I am preparing for

Best Regards,
Bryan Hill
Bryan Hill
VideoServer Inc.
(781) 505-2159
bhill at videoserver.com <mailto:bhill at videoserver.com>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list