[H.323 Mobility:]H.246 Annex E.1 and Annex E.2 White drafts

Reddy, Paul K paul.k.reddy at INTEL.COM
Mon Jul 17 07:08:34 EDT 2000

Hi Everybody,

Please visit Pictel site for reviewing the final H.246 Annex E.1 and H.246
Annex E.2 document, which are submitted for decision during November meeting
in Geneva.


Please review the documents and provide you comments to me at your earliest

Editor of H.246 Annex E.1 & H.246 Annex E.2

Paul K. Reddy
Intel Corporation
Office Phone# +1 (503)-264-9896
Mobile Phone# +1 (503)-807-9564
Email: paul.k.reddy at intel.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaakko Sundquist [mailto:jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] About GK discovery

Hi Radhika et al,

You're right, there is no point in continuing this discussion without other
members' participation in it. I'll just make a couple of short points and
then wait for hopefully somebody else to make their comments.

> Therefore, all wireless environment is NOT bandwidth restrictive.

Nor is wireline, of course. The point was that when you introduced the idea
of the MGA, your argument was that it would SAVE bandwidth. In fact, as far
as I could understand, this was the only argument you had for the use of
MGA. Now you are saying that, although the MGA probably uses more bandwidth
than the GRQ scheme, it is alright, because in some networks, the bandwidth
is not so scarse.

We discussed the idea of the MGA in Osaka and if you can remember, none of
the participants of the discussion were supporting the addition of this
message to H.323 (or RAS, to be more specific). When the bandwidth issue was
discussed, I remember that you were asked to produce some data or
information that would support the idea that in some cases the MGA would
save bandwidth. So far you have not done so.
So, as I said earlier, I'm happy to include the MGA in the annex, if you are
able to convince, not only me, but other memebers interested in the issue,
about the merits of the MGA scheme. Unfortunately this discussion hasn't
been participated by the others so far.

The idea of better interworking with mobile IP might be a reason for
introducing the MGA. However, you yourself asked for technical reasoning and
now I'm asking the same from you. Modelling other protocols is often a good
guide in protocol design (and we surely have used it), but my opinion (and I
feel it is shared by many others) is that just saying that because some
other protocol has some, in this case alternate, mechanisms for doing
something, is not a technical reason for adding exactly the same mechanisms
to our protocol. You are asking me to explain why mobile IP uses these two
mechanisms, but I think it is you who should explain that and furthermore
explain why both of these are needed in H.323.

Now, let's open the discussion for other members, I can see that this
dialogue is not leading us anywhere.


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