Mob ad hoc group progress
Roy, Radhika R, ALARC
rrroy at ATT.COM
Wed Apr 5 10:51:02 EDT 2000
Hi, Everyone:
We are again not in sink what is going on with respect to progress of our
work. Let me try again.
We have talked about Nokia's contribution MD-011. We have taught that this
provides a reference to start with. In that contribution, we have Figure 1:
Intra-zone all H.323 scenario. We have decided that we will go one step at a
time.
Now what does this Figure 1 provides us? We are NOT sure unless we explain
in detail what this scenario means to us. We cannot go to the next step
unless we analyze what the scenario of Figure 1 provides us. It may or may
not provide new insights from H.323 mobility point of view, but it is our
starting point. We have to complete it first before we go for the next step.
In this simple case, a mobile entity will move from its home network to a
foreign network. This also requires mobility management: Change in network
point of attachment and its possible impact in H.323 system.
Once we complete Figure 1, we will go for the next one: Figure 2 Inter-Zone
all H.323 scenario. Of course, this is a complicated one to provide better
scenario for mobility management: Change in network point attachment +
Change in zone (logical) point of attachment as well.
Then Figure 3: Inter-Domain all H.323 scenario.
And so on ...
If we do not do this, we might again go into circle.
I guess that this should be very clear to everyone. I would assume that
people should bring contributions along this line: Figure 1, 2, ....etc.
Let us not by-pass any step for sake of clarity and completeness.
A side note: We have defined VLF and HLF. VLF may be assumed to be
co-located within the GK. But let people explain the interactions including
VLF and HLF the way they prefer in their contributions. The contributions
themselves will justify how VLF and HLF should perform their functions. Let
us not mandate anything beforehand unless things are explained in the
contributions.
I like to see all members provide their comments on this.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 6:06 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
>
> Hi all,
>
> Once again there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about the terms we
> are
> using. First of all, we did not make it altogether clear in the last
> teleconference, what is meant by a scenario. My contribution on the issue
> tried to group both the "call scenarios" and the "location management
> scenarios" into one set of scenarios. We did notice during the
> teleconference that this was not an adequate approach and now some of the
> problems occuring in this email discussion reflect that.
> For example, when Radhika is talking about starting with the intra-zone
> scenario, I'm not quite sure what he is meaning. I understand that the
> "call
> scenario" he is talking about, is the one in which both terminals are
> registered to the same gatekeeper. However, this "call scenario" in itself
> does not really bring anything new to H.323 unless there is something that
> we need to address with the "location management scenarios". Now, while
> the
> "call scenario" does indeed fall into the category of intra-zone
> communications, the "location management scenario" for finding the address
> of the B-subscriber of the call might not, i.e. the VLF and HLF that need
> to
> be contacted may not be located in the same zone or even domain.
> Furthermore, we haven't even decided that the VLF and HLF should be a part
> of any zone. I know that most of us actually think that the VLF is always
> located with the gatekeeper, but so far we haven't made that decision and
> certainly we haven't coupled the HLF functionality always with the
> gatekeeper. Thus it is quite unclear what is meant by intra-zone "location
> management scenarios" and I would suggest that we do not even try to
> define
> this term. Instead intra vs inter domain "location management scenarios"
> make much more sence.
> (Note that I'm using the terms "call scenario" and "location management
> scenario" quite freely here. If we want to use such terms, they definitely
> must be clearly defined.)
>
> Also, I would like to point out that talking about intra-zone, inter-zone,
> etc. scenarios, is actually not what was originally meant by a scenario.
> The
> idea to introduce scenarios into the H.323 Mobility work came from Tiphon,
> where 5 different scenarios are identified. These scenarios do not take
> into
> account, whether the call (or other connection) takes place inside one
> zone
> (intra-zone), between two zones (inter-zone) or between domains
> (inter-domain). The scenarios in Tiphon simply state which network types
> are
> involved in the connection, e.g. Tiphon scenario 1 is the VoIP-to-SCN
> scenario, Tiphon scenario 2 is the SCN-to-VoIP scenario, etc. These were
> the
> kind of scenarios I thought we were trying to identify in the last
> teleconference. Of cource, each of this kind of scenarios may involve
> calls
> that are intra-zone, inter-zone or inter-domain calls, but we shouldn't
> call
> (no pun intended) these different call models as scenarios.
> We have now chosen the all-H.323 scenario as the first one to examine
> (although we didn't even know what it means). In my mind this means that:
> * We only examine call cases, in which no gateways are included.
> * We examine gatekeeper discovery, registration and location
> updating
> cases, in which the user is accessing the H.323 system either in his/her
> home network (e.g. domain) or a visited network (e.g. domain).
> * We examine call establishment and call release cases, in which the
> A-subscriber is either in his/her home network (domain) or in a visited
> network (domain).
> * We examine call establishment and call release cases, in which the
> B-subscriber is either in his/her home network (domain) or in a visited
> network (domain). Note that the call can be intra-zone, inter-zone or
> inter-domain irrespective of whether the B-subscriber is in home or
> visited
> network.
> * We examine mid-call scenarios (e.g. some supplementary services),
> in
> which the user (either A- or B-subscriber) is either in his/her home
> network
> or in a visited network.
> * In the context of H.323 Annex H we do not address the inteworking
> functionalities (IWFs) between the HLF/VLF/AuF and some non-H.323 network,
> unless some other document (such as H.246 Annex E) proposes additions to
> H.323 Annex H. (Note that, when we start work on some other scenarios in
> the
> future, we probably will have to take the IWFs into account.)
>
> Other issues that need to be addressed are at least the definitions for
> the
> home/visited network/domain/zone/gatekeeper, because it seems to me that
> some members are already using some of these terms in ways that already
> point to certain solutions, on which we have not yet agreed.
>
> I will try to work out a suitable contribution for the next teleconference
> to clarify these issues properly. If you have some comments to this mail,
> please respond. I know that this is a long posting with quite a lot of
> issues in it and I'm sure that I haven't explained myself too clearly in
> all
> parts of it, so please ask.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jaakko Sundquist *
> +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere!
> jaakko.sundquist at nokia.com *
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy at ATT.COM]
> Sent: 04. April 2000 15:31
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
>
> Paul:
>
> Thanks for clarifications.
>
> In the last conf call, we even cannot complete the simple intra-zone
> (intra-network, inter-network) scenarios first. You are right that we
> should
> concentrate on the scenarios (Registration procedures, Gatekeeper
> discovery,
> Location update, Call establishment, Mid-Call scenarios (e.g.
> supplementary
> services, user interaction, Call release).
>
> Definitely, we can go further: Inter-Zone (intra-domain) scenarios as well
> if we can agree on the first one. AT&T contributions already contain many
> of
> those aspects. Hope to bring new contributions explaining further in both
> scenarios.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Radhika R. Roy
> AT&T
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guram Paul-LPG019 [SMTP:lpg019 at EMAIL.MOT.COM]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 3:52 PM
> > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
> >
> > Radhika,
> >
> > Conf call is for Annex H only as before...nothing has changed...change
> can
> > only take place when the group agrees. Please do not read into the
> email
> > more than what it says. I was only trying to highlight, in a high level
> > report, the plight of Annex I since nothing much has moved in it, and it
> > is
> > an Annex which together with Annex H covers the mobility aspects. As
> far
> > as
> > Annex E is concerned, the point was that the mapping was the work of
> one
> > individual or one company, thus could have errors or omissions (more
> than
> > likely)...again only highlighting to people to check out this mapping.
> >
> > Contributions for next conf call to be for All H.323 intra-network
> > scenario
> > for:
> > Registration procedures, Gatekeeper discovery, Location
> > update, Call establishment, Mid-Call scenarios (e.g.
> > supplementary services,
> > user interaction), Call release. Also contributions on
> > any
> > impacts on the already specified architecture in the light of the
> present
> > work are welcome.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy at ATT.COM]
> > Sent: 01 April 2000 00:00
> > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: Re: Mob ad hoc group progress
> >
> > Hi, Paul and Mobility Group:
> >
> > I like to see that it should be clarified via emails
> > whether
> > H.323 Annex I
> > and H.246 Annex E will be a part of the conference call.
> > My
> > personal
> > preference is not to discuss annexes I and E during the
> > conference call
> > although email discussions will be preferred.
> >
> > If Annex I and E are included in the conference call, I
> > like
> > to see the
> > actual time in the agenda when these items will be
> > discussed
> > so that people
> > can best use their time in joining the particular time
> > slot
> > for each Annex.
> >
> > The proposal is as follows:
> >
> > 1. The upcoming conference call to be dedicated for
> H.323
> > Annex H.
> > 2. Let both editors of H.323 Annex I and H.246 Annex E
> > propose via emails
> > whether any issues to addressed.
> > 3. If annex I and E are included in the agenda of the
> > upcoming conference
> > call, I like to the time slots when these annexes will
> be
> > discussed so that
> > people can join the particular time slots of interest.
> > Alternatively,
> > separate conference calls can be arranged for annexes I
> > and
> > E.
> > 4. Are editors or any members of the mobility group sure
> > what would be the
> > scope of work (I guess that Annex E is stable for now -
> > thanks to the
> > editor) for those annexes?
> >
> > Paul: Would you please clarify what specific area that
> we
> > need to discuss
> > for the next conference call for H.323 Annex H? My guess
> > is
> > that we may
> > start with intra-zone communication first. I am planning
> > to
> > bring
> > contribution(s) describing this for mobility management:
> > Discovery,
> > Registration, Location Updates, and Call Establishment.
> >
> > I would appreciate comments form all members.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Radhika R. Roy
> > AT&T
> > H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group
> >
More information about the sg16-avd
mailing list