H.323 Annex N draft

Mike Buckley mikebuckley at ATTMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 21 20:06:22 EST 2000


Hi Radhika,

Thanks for your quick comments.

The agreement last week was that the H.323 mechanisms should operate
independently of transport mechanism.  This is included in the requirements.  So
all the mechanisms you list are included.

The backward compatibility is an important issue and one we should discuss
carefully as to its implications.  In principle I agree with you, backward
compatibility with existing H.323 mechanisms should be an important factor. I
am not yet sure yet what the implications of this are in the QoS area.

Mike

____________________ Begin Original Message
___________________________
Date: Mon Feb 21 17:56:43 -0500 2000
From: internet!ATT.COM!rrroy (Roy, Radhika R, ALARC)
Subject: Re: H.323 Annex N draft
To: internet!MAILBAG.INTEL.COM!ITU-SG16
Content-Type: Text
Content-Length: 2192

Hi, Mike and All:

I did not have the time go through the whole document yet. However, a quick
look into the document provides me to point out about the scope as follows:

1. The contributions were provided for mapping of H.323 QOS over the network
layer QOS. For example, IETF's DiffServ, IntServ/RSVP, and MPLS, and ATM
QOS
classes: CBR, VBR, rt-VBR, nrt-VRB, and ABR. Those contributions were
accepted in the last Red Bank (Oct'99) meeting. Accordingly, the then editor
Rich Bowen produced the TD in the last SG16 meeting.

So, the scope of H.323 QOS mapping over the network layer QOS (IP, ATM)
shall be there.

However, if you have any disagreement over the decision made in the last Red
Bank meeting, please submit a contribution in the upcoming OSAKA meeting
(May'00), we can discuss. Until the decision is made based on contributions,
the scope of the document shall remain the same as submitted by Mr. Rich
Bowen.

2. So far the backward compatibility is concerned, it shall not only
consider Appendix II, but it shall also consider ATM QOS provided in H.323
Annex C. Accordingly, both backward compatibilities should be included as
per norm of the ITU standards.

BTW, if you would keep the text the way I suggested, I would think that I
did not have to provide my comments as stated above.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy, AT&T

PS: I am yet to finish reading the whole document. Hope to provide more
comments later.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Buckley [SMTP:mikebuckley at ATTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:31 PM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      H.323 Annex N draft
>
> Attached is the first draft of the new Annex N of H.323.  This was issued
> at last
> week's meeting as TD126 of WP2 but the attached version includes some
> further
> minor revisions and additions of informational material (in the
> Appendices) which
> needs further review in the light of the adoption of the generic QoS
> bearer
> descriptor.
>
> Comments and contributions welcome.
>
> Mike Buckley (editor)
> mikebuckley at 44comms.com
> +44-1457-877718 (T)
> +44-1457-877721 (F) << File: [No Description] >>



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list