Re (2): IN-IPT interworking issue

Boaz Michaely Boaz_Michaely at VOCALTEC.COM
Wed Oct 27 07:43:59 EDT 1999


Dear Mr. Hwang,

>(1) What does the interfaces 1, 2, 3 4 mean ? Those are different with
that of
> Q.5/SG11(WP4).

The diagram shown is only what was proposed to SG11. I chose to leave it
for its overall value, since I have not made a better one yet ..
However, these are NOT the official interfaces.
For the actual interfaces defined, please refer to SG11 baseline doc.
you may find the version which was sent as a liasion to SG11 on my WEB
site:
http://people.itu.int/~michaely/docs/APC-1602.zip


>(2) What does the H.246C and D and the arrow to D mean ? (In my
understanding,
>H.246 only related with SSF or CCF..)
H.246 Annex C defines interworking between ISUP and H.323 call signalling
(H.225.0)
H.246 Annex D is the one that should deal with interworking on the service
control level.
The arrow in the diagram depicts that initially, information is only
expected to come from the SCP to the GK.
You may want to take a look at the Annex D terms of reference:
http://people.itu.int/~michaely/docs/TD-46.doc

>(3) Which question and recommendatio number for standardising about the
H.323
>service control ?
This is studied as part of Q13/16 and Q14/16. SG16 has recently defined a
new annex for H.323 service control using HTTP (H.323 Annex K). This is
currently the only effort in this area. You can find the draft which was
presented last week in
ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/APC-1696.zip


Regards,
     Boaz





-------------- next part --------------

?????? <jkhwang at kt.co.kr> on 27/10/99 05:55:06 AM

Please respond to jkhwang at kt.co.kr

To:   Boaz Michaely
cc:
Subject:  Re: IN-IPT interworking issue


-------------- next part --------------

Thank you for your information. It was very useful to me.

Do you have any more description or explanation about the figure you
attached
(IPT-IN.gif) ?

I have some questions about the figure itself :(if the description you may
have
include the answers, please kindly jsut send it to me)

(1) What does the interfaces 1, 2, 3 4 mean ? Those are different with that
of
Q.5/SG11(WP4).
(2) What does the H.246C and D and the arrow to D mean ? (In my
understanding,
H.246 only related with SSF or CCF..)
(3) Which question and recommendatio number for standardising about the
H.323
service control ?


I will be great appreciated if you answer me.


Best regards,

Jinkyung Hwang
Korea Telcom
(Korean delegate for SG11 WP4)


Boaz Michaely wrote:

> Dear  Mr. Mi ,
> Thank you for following up ! I took the liberty of replying to you over
the
> reflectors, since many people are interested:
>
> >.What's the conclusion for your contribution?
> TD-97 (Proposal to simplify the functional architecture for IN support of
> IP Networks) was the basis for discussion in Manchester and was followed
by
> an editing session of SG11 baseline.
> A liasion including the result of the updated baseline doc. was sent to
> SG16 in APC-1602 (attached zip file)
> (See attached file: APC-1602.zip)
>
> >.What kind of service does the interface "H.323 service control" between
> > MGC and GK refer to? Is it related to MGC originated IPT IN-call
> >(i.e.the call is coming from PSTN side)?
>
> The diagram you refer to is attached for everyone's convenience
> (IPT-IN.gif)
> (See attached file: IPT-IN.gif)
>
> - In some ways this interface resembles the TCAP interface between the
SSF
> to the SCP: it allows for the IPT service controller (the GK) to instruct
> the GW on what to do with an incoming call (which may originate in IP or
in
> PSTN). As the diagram depicts, the basic support already exists in RAS,
> however SG16, as well as some other organizations, have contemplated on
> expanding it. This proposed interface has not yet materialized.
>
> >.To my current understanding, IPT IN-call, for example 800 or 300
> >(calling card) calls, is of value only for H.323 terminal originated
> >call. There is no scenario for MGC originated IPT IN-call. Is that the
> >case?
>
> The typical scenario for a terminal originated call is a PC user, while a
> GW originated call is for a calling card service. There is no difference
> between the two for this purpose: The originating endpoint (whether a
> terminal or a GW), requests the GK to provide the routing information
> (address, security token, etc) for a destination GW that supports the
> requested E.164 number. The problem that "IF1" (see diagram) needs to
> solve, is to allow the GK to consult the IN database for making such
> decisions. At the same time, it may prove beneficial for the SCP to
consult
> with the GK in a mirrored scenario  (assuming the GK based network has a
> meaningful service knowledge). The trivial example, is off course, the
GK's
> knowledge of the registered endpoints (=logged in users).
>
> Finally, please note that in parallel to SG11 work, which aims to define
IP
> interworking for CS-4, SG16 is aiming to define IPT interworking with
CS-1,
> with zero changes to CS-1, and minimal changes to H.323.
> Please take a look at my editor's web page, which contains links to the
> relevant documents:
> http://people.itu.int/~michaely/
>
> Contributions are solicited !
>
> Sincerely,
> Boaz Michaely.
>
> mizk <mizk at em.njupt.edu.cn> on 23/10/99 10:24:29 PM
>
> To:   Michaely Boaz <boaz at vocaltec.com>
> cc:    (bcc: Boaz Michaely)
> Subject:  IN-IPT interworking issue
>
> Dear Mr.Boaz:
>
> I read your contribution TD97 on IN-IPT interworking at SG11/Q4,5&22
> Manchester meeting. It interests me a lot because I have been actively
> involved in IN/Internet interworking issue at SG11/Q5 from the very
> beginning. My two contributions were the main sources of TD-GEN11/123
> and its addendum. Since I didn't attend to Manchester meeting, I would
> like you to give some information on the following points:
>
> .What's the conclusion for your contribution?
>
> .What kind of service does the interface "H.323 service control" between
> MGC and GK refer to? Is it related to MGC originated IPT IN-call
> (i.e.the call is coming from PSTN side)?
>
> .To my current understanding, IPT IN-call, for example 800 or 300
> (calling card) calls, is of value only for H.323 terminal originated
> call. There is no scenario for MGC originated IPT IN-call. Is that the
> case?
>
> Thank you in advance for your information.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Zhengkun Mi
> delegate to SG11
> MII(formerly MPT), China
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                       Name: APC-1602.zip
>    APC-1602.zip       Type: Download File (application/zip)
>                   Encoding: base64
>                Description: .ZIP File
>
>                     Name: IPT-IN.gif
>    IPT-IN.gif       Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
>                 Encoding: base64
>              Description: Compuserve GIF



begin:vcard
n:;Ms. Jinkyung Hwang
tel;fax:+82-2-526-6118
tel;work:+82-2-526-6830
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Korea Telecom;Intelligent Network Team
version:2.1
email;internet:jkhwang at kt.co.kr
title:Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;17 Woomyun-dong Seocho-gu=0D=0ASeoul Korea;;;;
x-mozilla-cpt:;-23600
fn:Ms. Jinkyung Hwang
end:vcard







More information about the sg16-avd mailing list