H.323v3 for decision in September

[Pete Cordell]

Paul,

The reason for proposing the extensibility framework changes is to make
future additions to H.323 easier.  Indeed, V4 extensions could be
implemented as annexes which exploit the extensibility framework.  They
would then have a standardisation cycle of their own, and each new
implementation of a version is not loaded with baggage that is potentially
not of interest to it.  Therefore post-poning them to V4 is highly
un-desirable.  People have made contribution plans based on the previous
dead-lines.  Quickly dropping a half-baked version of H.323 that then forces
as to wait another 2 years for any revisions makes little sense.

Pete

=============================================
Pete Cordell
pete at tech-know-ware.com
=============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones <paul.jones at TIES.ITU.INT>
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Date: 29 June 1999 16:52
Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September


>Pete,
>
>I would venture to say that, given the nature of this work, it would not be
>included in H.323v3.  However, it could certainly be included in H.323v4,
>which, as I noted below, will be determined in February.
>
>There are actually a number of new features people want to add to H.323,
>which is one reason for adjusting the schedule.  By deciding v3 in
>September, we can focus our attention on v4, which will give us the time to
>enrich H.323 in a reasonable timeframe.  It would be nearly impossible to
>properly add all of the new features to v3 between now and February.
>
>Would you be willing to bring that document as a contribution toward v4?
>
>Paul
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Pete Cordell <pete at TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM>
>To: <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 4:01 AM
>Subject: Re: H.323v3 for decision in September
>
>
>> One issue I was discussing with my BT colleagues was installing an open
>> framework for extensibility and feature negotiation into H.323v3.  The
>> motivation for this was to enable transport of SS7, but also other
>protocols
>> such as DPNSS, (is CAS a digital one?) and so on.  If we were to go ahead
>I
>> guess we would have presented something in Berlin.
>>
>> Given that September is fast approaching waiting for such a scheme to
>> transport things like SS7 does not seem too onerous.
>>
>> Unfortunately my colleagues are out this week, but I will attach the
>latest
>> text so that people can have early sight of it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> =============================================
>> Pete Cordell
>> pete at tech-know-ware.com
>> =============================================
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul E. Jones <paul.jones at TIES.ITU.INT>
>> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
>> Date: 29 June 1999 01:25
>> Subject: H.323v3 for decision in September
>>
>>
>> >Folks,
>> >
>> >We may attempt to decide H.323v3 in September and determine version 4 in
>> >February.  Mr. Skran has asked that I post the current draft so that
>people
>> >can review the document.  This document must be delivered to the ITU by
>30
>> >June 1999.  (Please note that Annex C/H.323 is also a candidate for
>> decision
>> >in Septemer.)
>> >
>> >This document contains only minor editorial changes to the document that
>> was
>> >determined in Santiago.  Nonetheless, I encourage you to review the
>> document
>> >for any errors or omissions.
>> >
>> >The change marks indicate all changes that have been made since version
>2.
>> >
>> >Please direct any comments on the document to me.
>> >
>> >The document can be found here:
>> >
>> >ftp://standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/H.323v3-990628.doc
>> >
>> >Best Regards,
>> >Paul E. Jones
>> >DataBeam Corporation
>> >
>>
>