Third party registration/group registration
plong at PACKETIZER.COM
Fri Dec 1 17:37:12 EST 2000
I personally don't think this is something that needs to be in the
Recommendation. Interoperability won't be helped either way.
From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at isdn-comms.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 10:58 AM
To: plong at ipdialog.com; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com; Paul Jones;
rkbowen at cisco.com
Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
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
in two cases:
1. They have discovered the gatekeeper, but have been rejected by either GRJ
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
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
question of whether something is permitted by the standard. I could draw up
very quick proposal (<= 1/2 page) for the next ITU meeting, but I will not
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
properly by their authors, giving the two viewpoints. Any volunteers (Rick?
Paul J? As editors of the relevant standards?)?
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com
More information about the sg16-avd