Outcome of the SG16 meeting

[Sakae OKUBO]

Chris,

I'll be happy to present anything.  Can't say that I will defend anything,
but I'll present it :-)

I missed much of the discussion, so if you wouldn't mind, will you write an
e-mail me summarizing the two opposing opinions?

Thanks,
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Wayman Purvis" <cwp at isdn-comms.co.uk>
To: <plong at ipdialog.com>; <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>; "Paul Jones"
<paul.jones at ties.itu.ch>; <rkbowen at cisco.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration


> 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
>