Third party registration/group registration

[Chris Wayman Purvis]

All,

I think on the matter of whether the standards permit H.323 entities to
continue to operate unregistered in an environment where there is a gatekeeper,
in two cases:
1. They have discovered the gatekeeper, but have been rejected by either GRJ or
RRJ.
2. No attempt has been made to discover a gatekeeper.

I have a view.  Paul Long has a view.  I have a different view.  These differ.
I believe, however, that whichever view prevails, one must, and this must be
through the standards themselves.  Common usage can not decide this, as it's a
question of whether something is permitted by the standard.  I could draw up a
very quick proposal (<= 1/2 page) for the next ITU meeting, but I will not be
able to come and present it.   To help the experts at the meeting to come to
the right decision, however, opposing proposals probably ought to be presented
properly by their authors, giving the two viewpoints.  Any volunteers (Rick?
Paul J?  As editors of the relevant standards?)?

Regards,
Chris

Paul Long wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Re Re Q2: Yes, I agree with A2c, but I see no point in wasting _any_
> bandwidth for RAS on a system that does not contain a gatekeeper.
>
> Re Re Q3: I think we understand each other and that we'll just have to agree
> to disagree on this. It's up to the implementation and ultimately the market
> to decide whether the user may disable RAS.
>
> Re Re Q4: Correct, if something behaves "as if" it were compliant then I
> suppose it is, well... compliant. :-) No change is necessary to the
> Recommendations.
>
> Paul Long
> ipDialog, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK]
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:41 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
>
> Paul,
>
> > Gettin' closer.
> I think (and hope!) so!
>
> > Re Q2: I simply can't justify making the user wait several seconds for a
> > discovery that will always fail in a system without a gatekeeper before he
> > or she can place or answer each and every call. Can you? Therefore, the
> user
> > should be able to turn off RAS.
> So you'll agree on answer c then?
> What about regular reattempts to find a gatekeeper (excluding my suggestion
> of
> when a call is attempted).
>
> > Re Q3: I agree with you, except that with some endpoints the user may then
> > turn off RAS and place or answer calls without RAS. Note that the typical
> > user will most likely not do this, since at least placing a call without a
> > gatekeeper would require more knowledge than the average user posseses,
> > e.g., the IP address of the called party.
> This is where I disagree, on the grounds that if we allow calls in systems
> with
> gatekeepers from endpoints that are not registered, we may as well throw
> away
> the gatekeeper altogether (or at least call it a proxy and start speaking
> SIP).
>
> > Re Q4: Maybe he has decomposed his endpoint. In the C Standard, there is
> > something called the "as if" rule. Applying it here, if the system
> > experiences consistent behavior from a possibly decomposed entity that is
> > acting "as if" it were a corporate entity, it is compliant IMO. Who cares
> > where messages originate as long as the effect is the same? In a different
> > way, the "as if" rule is what allows routing gatekeepers to do what they
> > do--they can fiddle with messages streams all they want as long as they
> > maintain consistency "as if" the message streams were originating from a
> > compliant endpoint.
> Surely if the "as if" rule applies there can be no requirement for any
> changes
> to the standard - otherwise it isn't "as if"!
> I grant the possibility of the decomposed endpoint, although I don't
> personally
> understand why anyone would want to, as the communication between the
> decomposed parts would be at least as complicated as RAS itself.
>
> > Note that when I say, "user," I mean either the actual user of the
> endpoint
> > or possibly an administrator of the system. I think it's perfectly
> > reasonable to make the use of RAS an administrated setting.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com

--
Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
Winkfield Row, Berkshire.  RG42 6LY  ENGLAND
Phone: +44 1344 899 007
Fax:   +44 1344 899 001

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com