Draft Status Update

Agboh, Charles Charles.Agboh at gts.com
Mon Dec 4 13:01:45 EST 2000


Paul,

Thanks for your comments.  I will work on the contribution.   

Best regards,

charles
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 11:45 PM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Draft Status Update


Charles,

I see us going in one of two directions:
  1) Overloading the "h323" field to really be "ipgw", which can reach any
     protocol
  2) Adding new code points for each protocol (one for SIP, one for
     BICC, etc.)

I don't think it's really necessary to create some type of structure that
then contains values inside.  SupportedProtocols is a CHOICE type, so adding
new choices is not expensive in terms of processing or encoding.  Also, I
suspect we will not be extending this list very many times.  SIP and BICC
are the only two candidates that I expect we'll be considering in the next
few years.  It will be small, in any case.

What I think you should do is submit a contribution to the next meeting
(March 5-9) with the proposal for adding this new field.  If you can't
attend the meeting, I'll be happy to present the document for you.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Agboh, Charles" <Charles.Agboh at gts.com>
To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>;
<ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Cc: <sip-h323 at egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update


> I inadvertently sent an incomplete version of this e-mail to the itu-sg16
> mailing list,  for that, I appologize.
>
>
> Paul, Bob;
>
> The SIP-H.323 gateway will be a gateway with multimedia capabilities.
The
> focus now will be on voice and video.   It is possible that other IP
> Telephony signaling protocols may be invented in the future and these may
> ask for codepoints in H.323.  "ipgw" may be a way to provide a codepoint
for
> the class of IP Telephony protocols.    I am wondering what sort of
> information should be conveyed in such a structure (apart from the
obvious):
> ipgw = seqence of {
>     -protocol id     ('sip', 'bicc',...) of type text string
>     -....
> }.
>
>
> Concering the current verison of  the SIP-H.323 gw I(we) agree that "h323"
> should be used for now.
>
> Regards,
>
> charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:30 PM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I suppose it could, though I have not heard anybody focusing on multimedia
> in SIP.  There are certainly a lot of missing pieces on that side for
doing
> that.  They could do audio and video at the very least.
>
> The folks I have heard from have been asking for a codepoint to advertise
> that the gateway is an H.323 to SIP gateway.  The question is simply how
to
> signal that?  There's plenty of options, but we should select the one that
> makes the most sense.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at packetizer.com>;
> <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
>
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > Actually a gateway should advertise "voice" if it only support voice.
> > Advertising "h323" means that the full multimedia suite of H.323 is
> > supported.  What is the intent of the H.323 to SIP gateway?  Will it
> > interwork the full multimedia suite?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:33 PM
> > To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > The very fact that SIP is sitting on the back side of this H.323 device
> was
> > one reason I never pursued trying to add a "sip" codepoint, per se.
> Adding
> > "sip" as a codepoint might suggest that the SIP devices are doing RAS
and
> I
> > know that would send shivers through the SIP community :-)
> >
> > Perhaps the right approach is to say that "h323" is the right choice and
> we
> > should clarify in H.225.0 that this codepoint is used to indicate an
H.323
> > GW that reaches other IP-based protocols.
> >
> > I think we need to say something, because this issue comes up from time
to
> > time.  People want to feel comfortable that when they register a gateway
> and
> > provide SIP interworking that they advertise the right protocol to the
GK.
> > I don't see any reason why the GK should care whether the GW is actually
> > using SIP, BICC, or H.323 on the back side.
> >
> > Is there a technical reason why should or should not allow "h323" to be
> used
> > as I suggest above?  I think we're in agreement that this does, indeed,
> act
> > like nothing more than an H.323 firewall and if it advertises the
ability
> to
> > reach the desired destination-- I suppose that's all we need to care
> about.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at packetizer.com>;
> > <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:37 AM
> > Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
> >
> >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > Based on the rule that the SIP-H.323 gateway appears to the endpoints
as
> > an
> > > H.323 firewall, then this will work.  If there ever is any difference,
> > then
> > > there is a problem
> > >
> > > I prefer to keep the "h323" designation.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:33 PM
> > > To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > I was not suggesting that we use the h323-ID field any differently--
it
> > was
> > > the "h323" field inside the supportedProtocols choice.  It is used to
> > > indicate a gateway that gateways to H.323 devices.  However, it could
> > serve
> > > just as well to say it gateways to any IP telephony protocol.  That's
> why
> > I
> > > suggested we call it "ipgw".
> > >
> > > Whether we do that or add a "sip" field makes no difference to me, but
> the
> > > latter option may take 2 years.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> > > To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>;
> > > <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:18 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Draft Status Update
> > >
> > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > I thought that the object of the IWF is to make the mixing of H.323
> > > > terminals and SIP terminals transparent.
> > > >
> > > > However, I could see supporting SIP: URLs in the H.323 URL field
along
> > > with
> > > > the H.323 URL.  This would be possible under the URL rules for
> H.323v4.
> > I
> > > > would also expect SIP terminals to support the H.323 URL.
> > > >
> > > > The does not solve the problem of true E.164 Ids or the TEL: URL.  A
> > true
> > > > E.164 Id does not allow for a service prefix.  In that this is the
> > normal
> > > Id
> > > > for voice calls, it must have a solution.  An added problem is
"Number
> > > > Portability" which tends to kill number grouping.
> > > >
> > > > I do not accept the concept of hidden usages of any field.  Therefor
I
> > do
> > > > not support the use of the H.323ID field having a special format
that
> > > > indicates a SIP connection.  The H.323ID field should remain a free
> > format
> > > > string.
> > > >
> > > > As it was stated, the gateway identifieds as having H.323 protocol
is
> > used
> > > > by firewalls doing H.323-H.323.  Also voice indicates any gateway
> > support
> > > > voice only connections.  These should be mis-used.  Adding a new
> > protocol
> > > > type for a gateway would have to wait.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:08 AM
> > > > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Charles,
> > > >
> > > > I have discussed that idea with people before.
> > > >
> > > > I'm certainly open to the idea of adding a "sip" codepoint.
However,
> > > since
> > > > H.323v4 was just approved, we'd have to wait for 2 years to get it
in
> > > there.
> > > > We might be able to persuade folks to use the "h323" field for IP
GWs
> > and
> > > > document that in the H.323 Implementers Guide-- perhaps even
changing
> > the
> > > > name in v5 to "ipgw".
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 mailing list