[H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.

[Roy, Radhika R, ALARC]

Hi, Everyone:

I understand what Paul has pointed out. We know that a lot work needs to be
done when it comes to an agreement between the two standard organizations:
ITU-T SG16 and IETF. We have seen how other works had been done in the past
cooperatively despite the difficulty.

However, there is a crying need in the industry for the H.323-SIP
interoperability standard. We are always optimistic that the good-will will
always prevail for the benefit of the user community of the whole world as
these standard organizations are committed to provide interoperability.

We not talking about the work for the H.323-SIP interoperability that is
being done in other forums (e.g., IMTC, ETSI/TIPHON, and others). These
works will go on and they did in the past, and as they will be doing now.

We are working for an internationally acceptable standard where both ITU-T
and IETF will make it a formal standard. Accordingly, we are working as per
agreement made in the last SG16 (Feb'00) meeting: To bring contributions in
the SG16 ( - in Q.14/16 and joint discussions will be held for both Q.13 and
Q.14).

It can also been seen that a request has also been sent to the IETF for a
BOF session in the upcoming meeting (March'00).

Efforts are underway to overcome all difficulties. I appreciate Paul to
clarify all aspects of difficulties that we might have to face for working
in this new area and we are also counting on Paul's support for our effort
as well.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [SMTP:paul.jones at TIES.ITU.INT]
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 1:15 AM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
>
> Folks,
>
> I agree that the goal of a standards body is to create specifications to
> allow interoperability.  However, this is "delicate" territory.  This work
> is not similar to creating a new annex to H.246 wherein the ITU specifies
> interoperability between various systems or protocols defined elsewhere in
> the ITU.  This work involves describing how to interwork an ITU system
> with
> an IETF RFC.
>
> It's not an impossible task, but one that may lead to tremendous debate.
> It
> is quite obvious that some members of the ITU and some members of the IETF
> have very basic philosophical differences.  I can tell you that some
> members
> of the IETF will quickly reject anything the ITU does to standardize
> interoperability.  I can also tell you that some of those members will
> also
> reject anything ETSI does, as well.
>
> This is not to say that I am opposed to such an effort-- if companies
> support the idea, that is enough of an indication to me that people feel
> it's necessary and should be done.  However, if we head down that path, I
> really believe that this should be a joint effort between the ITU and the
> IETF.  Why?  Because there are strengths and weaknesses with both
> protocols
> and one could easily introduce bias into such a specification in such a
> way
> as to highlight the strengths of one protocol and the weaknesses of the
> other.
>
> And, of course, everyone here knows that H.323 is far superior to SIP,
> right? :-)
>
> Again, I do not disagree with the work.  However, as sad and pathetic as
> this statement may sound, it's true: the IETF members (especially the
> supporters of SIP) have little respect for the ITU and, unless we do this
> jointly, our lone efforts are likely to not be well received.  I've
> already
> heard enough negative remarks about the efforts the ITU is undertaking
> (especially in SG13) to describe new Internet protocols; the claims are
> that
> "that is work the IETF does and the ITU has no business doing it".
>
> It has already been suggested that a third party may be the better choice
> for such a work.  Mr. Taylor mentioned that ETSI may already be doing
> this.
> Did I understand that correctly?  If that's the case, and if we can get
> the
> IETF to agree to allow them to do such work, we should probably let them
> do
> the work.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" <rrroy at ATT.COM>
> To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
>
>
> > Hi, Everyone:
> >
> > I am in full agreement with Orit. I guess that this has also been the
> case
> > for many people who had been present in the SG16 meeting.
> >
> > More importantly, when I talked to Glen, he clearly indicated that we
> should
> > bring contributions to get the work started. The interworking between
> H.323
> > and SIP may belong Q.14 (although it has to be discussed jointly with
> Q.13
> > and Q.14).
> >
> > There has been a very strong interest for the work of H.323-SIP
> > Interworking. A large number of people throughout the world (starting
> from
> > the ITU-T and IETF) is contacting me.
> >
> > The primary goal of the standard bodies is to provide
> "INTEROPERABILITY."
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Radhika R. Roy
> > AT&T
> > +1 732 420 1580
> > rrroy at att.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Orit Levin [SMTP:orit at radvision.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:42 PM
> > > To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > Subject:      Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
> > >
> > > Dear Rob!
> > > Yes, believe me, I read the official report very carefully.
> > > The whole idea is to present "the terms of reference" as a
> contribution
> > > for
> > > Osaka meeting.
> > > I do not see how it prevents to move the work forward, especially if
> many
> > > people see it as valuable.
> > >
> > > BTW: Who said  the work shouldn't be done jointly? My point was that
> it
> > > may
> > > start from documents and people, rather then from "ITU and IETF". And
> > > after
> > > all we are NOT talking about joined standard definition. In worst case
> > > about
> > > joined Network definition. :-))
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Orit Levin
> > > RADVision Inc.
> > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
> > > Mahwah, NJ 07430
> > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
> > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516
> > > www.radvision.com
> > > orit at radvision.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Callaghan, Robert <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> > > To: 'Orit Levin' <orit at radvision.com>; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:09 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > Orit,
> > >
> > > This is the statement from the Q.14 meeting report:
> > >
> > > ======= Start
> > >
> > > 3.8.5.1 D.352 - H.323-SIP Interworking [AT&T, et al]
> > > This was presented together with D.413. Comments included:
> > > · Concerns about joint development with IETF
> > > · Which version of SIP would be used?
> > > · Suggest postponing this until the next study period - need to look
> > > at how Q.13 and Q.14 were formulated 4 years ago and see how output
> > > compares
> > > with phrasing of work in these questions
> > > · Activities should include comparing call models, media signaling
> > > · Concerns about increased travel - maybe this should not be done in
> > > SG16
> > > · Forming a new question might not be the best answer - this would
> > > split the expertise in SG16 again (as Q.13 and Q.14 have moved away
> from
> > > joint sessions)
> > > · Need to work from official process of IETF (i.e., use only the IETF
> > > equivalent of a Recommendation)
> > > · Consider gatekeepers working with TRIP
> > > Individuals saw merit in the work. Invite contributions on how to
> approach
> > > the work. Need to get scenarios for progressing work in a controlled
> > > architectural approach. Ms. Levin has volunteered to draft a
> framework.
> > > See additional notes in Q.13 meeting report.
> > >
> > > ======= End
> > >
> > > This is the statement in the Q.13 report:
> > >
> > > ======= Start
> > >
> > > D.413(2/16)  [Canada]  - Interworking Between  H.323 and SIP Networks
> > >
> > > This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16,
> that
> > > would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
> > >
> > > With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several
> > > versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with SIP
> as
> > > SIP is ill-defined at this point in time.  The wisdom of starting a
> new
> > > question near the end of the study period was also questioned.  It was
> > > also
> > > mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of
> defining
> > > the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work.   One
> > > suggestion is that interoperability should be between  standards
> bodies
> > > such
> > > as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e.
> that
> > > the
> > > target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by
> > > various
> > > other bodies.  There were various expressions of support that this
> should
> > > be
> > > studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities are
> > > solicited.  It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13
> and
> > > Q14.
> > >
> > > ======= End
> > >
> > > I cannot see in these statements any thing representing an agreement
> as
> to
> > > the work to be performed.  Your attached terms of reference were not
> > > approved at the working party, which is required, nor in the Question
> > > meeting.  Without an agreement as to the scope, I do not see how to
> move
> > > the
> > > work forward, even if many people see it as valuable. Therefore you
> paper
> > > on
> > > terms of reference can be accepted as a contribution to the Osaka
> meeting
> > > for discussion.
> > >
> > > I do know that the proposal for a new question was rejected at the
> > > question
> > > level, and not brought forward to the working party or study group
> level.
> > >
> > > Talking to Dale, I know that he wants to start the work with H.225.0
> Annex
> > > G
> > > to TRIP.  Other items are to follow.
> > >
> > > For me one of the problems is the culture clash.  I do not feel that
> the
> > > ITU
> > > should represent itself as SIP experts and I do not accept any IETF
> person
> > > as an H.323 expert.  Therefore the work should be done jointly.  No
> one
> > > wants to repeat the process used by H.248, so what is the process to
> be
> > > used?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Robert Callaghan
> > > Siemens Information and Communication Networks
> > > Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403
> > > Email: Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Orit Levin [mailto:orit at radvision.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:27 PM
> > > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Sebestyen!
> > > There is additional chapter from Q.14 Report with the same meaning,
> but
> I
> > > am
> > > sure it doesn't answer your question. During Geneva meeting additional
> > > related aspects were discussed. In my previous mail I was referring to
> the
> > > attached paper. (You will find references to relevant contributions in
> > > this
> > > paper.) Currently this paper is one of the opinions and possible
> > > directions.
> > > We are having this discussion on the list in order to get an
> understanding
> > > of the work we would like to pursue and prepare contributions for
> Osaka
> > > meeting.
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Orit Levin
> > > RADVision Inc.
> > > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
> > > Mahwah, NJ 07430
> > > Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
> > > Fax: 1 201 529 3516
> > > www.radvision.com
> > > orit at radvision.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sebestyen Istvan ICN M CS 27 <Istvan.Sebestyen at icn.siemens.de>
> > > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>;
> 'Orit
> > > Levin' <orit at radvision.com>
> > > Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:02 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Orit,
> > > >I am a bit confused on what should be done here. I have only found in
> > > TD-74
> > > >(ITU-T SG16 Working Party 2 Report) the following passages:
> > > >
> > > >"D.352(2/16) [Various] - H.323 SIP Interworking
> > > >
> > > >This document calls for a joint ITU-T/IETF study of H.323/SIP
> > > interworking.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >D.413(2/16)  [Canada]  - Interworking Between  H.323 and SIP Networks
> > > >
> > > >This calls for the creation of an interoperability question in SG16,
> that
> > > >would cover among other things, H.323/SIP interworking.
> > > >
> > > >With regard to both D.352/D.413, it was noted that there are several
> > > >versions of SIP, it is hard to start any work to interoperate with
> SIP
> as
> > > >SIP is ill-defined at this point in time.  The wisdom of starting a
> new
> > > >question near the end of the study period was also questioned.  It
> was
> > > also
> > > >mentioned that a great deal of work needs to be done in terms of
> defining
> > > >the procedures and architecture that would apply to this work.   One
> > > >suggestion is that interoperability should be between  standards
> bodies
> > > such
> > > >as the ITU and IETF, and this should be the focus of the work, i.e.
> that
> > > the
> > > >target is official IETF RFCs and not SIP type documents produced by
> > > various
> > > >other bodies.  There were various expressions of support that this
> should
> > > be
> > > >studied, and contributions related to architectures and priorities
> are
> > > >solicited.  It was agreed that contributions should address both Q13
> and
> > > >Q14."
> > > >
> > > >Is there anything else as "Mission Statement" for the interim work?
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Istvan
> > > >
> > >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -
> > > >Dr. Istvan Sebestyen
> > > >Siemens AG, ICN M CS27,
> > > >Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich
> > > >Tel:+49-89-722-47230
> > > >Fax:+49-89-722-47713
> > > >E-Mail office: istvan.sebestyen at icn.siemens.de; istvan at sebestyen.de
> > > >E-mail private: istvan_sebestyen at yahoo.com;
> > > >Siemens
> Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4
> > > >Siemens FTP:    ftp://mchhpn006a.mch.pn.siemens.de
> > >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > -
> > > >----------------
> > > >
> > > >> ----------
> > > >> From: Orit Levin[SMTP:orit at radvision.com]
> > > >> Reply To: Orit Levin
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:53 PM
> > > >> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > >> Subject: [H.323-SIP/Internet] The reason.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi!
> > > >> I would like to highlight the reason of "H.323-XXX" work in ITU-T
> as
> > > >> described in the initial paper.
> > > >>
> > > >> H.323 is NOT new to Internet. Internet is evolving and new
> > > specifications
> > > >> in "IP telephony" area are being defined in IETF. This is a time to
> > > >> consider each one of these specifications to be applied to H.323.
> If
> > > found
> > > >> useful from technical point of view (as a kind of Back End
> Services)
> or
> > > >> just as required for interworking purposes (such as H.323-SIP
> > > scenarios),
> > > >> standard definitions for H.323 should be formulated. These two are
> > > >> connected since the first definitely helps the second.
> > > >>
> > > >> The written above agenda is a proposal for the work scope. Based on
> our
> > > >> discussions, it seems like more then one company would like to see
> this
> > > >> work beyond the topic of H.323-SIP interoperability. (forget the
> name
> > > :-)
> > > >> ) If we agree that standardization is needed for this kind of work,
> the
> > > >> only possible way to do it is to participate in ITU-T process (with
> all
> > > >> its meaning).
> > > >>
> > > >> Currently we are in the beginning of the process sorting out topics
> of
> > > our
> > > >> interest. I think most of us are aware of the work being done in
> other
> > > >> organizations. We would like to see experts (including from TIPHON
> and
> > > >> IETF) presenting their concepts to ITU (starting from the mailing
> list)
> > > >> keeping us from repeating their work and being aligned with them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >> Orit Levin
> > > >> RADVision Inc.
> > > >> 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
> > > >> Mahwah, NJ 07430
> > > >> Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
> > > >> Fax: 1 201 529 3516
> > > >> www.radvision.com
> > > >> orit at radvision.com
> > > >>
> >