Third party registration/group registration

Paul Long plong at PACKETIZER.COM
Fri Dec 1 09:53:40 EST 2000


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

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
Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration


> 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
> 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
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
gatekeepers from endpoints that are not registered, we may as well throw
the gatekeeper altogether (or at least call it a proxy and start speaking

> 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
to the standard - otherwise it isn't "as if"!
I grant the possibility of the decomposed endpoint, although I don't
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
> or possibly an administrator of the system. I think it's perfectly
> reasonable to make the use of RAS an administrated setting.



For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list