H323Mobility: About the work plan

Jaakko Sundquist jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM
Wed Nov 10 09:54:01 EST 1999

Hi Radhika & others,

Radhika has sent several messages indicating that he would like to see
complete mobility solutions from Nokia as well as others. We do not think
that this is a good way to define the Annex H at this point. Furthermore, we
think that this kind of approach is in conflict with what was agreed as the
work plan in the Red Bank meeting. In our opinion we all agreed that the
next step is to finish the functional requirements and define the functional
architecture including the reference points and descriptions of the
functional entities.

If we all were to present our complete solutions (which I really doubt that
all interested parties would be prepared to do), it would lead to several
very long contributions, say one from each of the following: AT&T, Motorola,
Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Intel. Each of these contributions would
probably be in excess to 50 pages and very probably there would be great
differences between them. In order for us to be discussing the matter based
on these contributions would require that everyone has fully analyzed each
of the contributions in such a way that possible weaknesses and/or clear
errors are found. This would require such an enormous workload that in
practice it would not be done and we would end up arguing about the matter
with quite limited knowledge of each other's ideas and in the end we would
probably produce some kind of lame compromise full of errors that have to be
corrected afterwards.

Now, this does not mean that we shouldn't present example cases (procedures)
based on the proposed architectural models, etc. Our view is that this kind
of examples are both illustrative and necessary for understanding how the
system might work. However, we think that we do not need detailed message
definitions or even all the message sequences at this phase, the general
information flows are quite enough for examining the behavior of the
proposed architectures. In fact, we think that the next logical step in the
Annex H standardization process would be the definition of the information
flows (i.e. what kind of information must be sent) between the functional
entities. After this kind of analysis has been made, it is much easier to
make the message and message field definitions (e.g. ASN.1) as well as the
message sequences in a way that is acceptable by at least the most of us.

Nokia will present an architecture proposition in the near future, hopefully
by the beginning of next week.

- Jaakko Sundquist
     In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
 Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of
     worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare,
sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat:
     it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list