[H.323 Mobility:] A new H.323 Annex H Draft
Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO
rrroy at ATT.COM
Fri Jul 7 15:24:43 EDT 2000
Hi, Jaakko and Everyone:
It is nice to see that you and Mr. Kumar had a communication related to GRQ
and you have included in the contribution.
I wonder what happened to the emails that I sent to the SG16 email "public"
reflector related to MGA message! I have not seen any counter arguments
related to this in the email reflector. I like to see that MGA message is
also included (with both unicast and multicast option as suit the
I would also appreciate that you should start discussing in the email
reflector before any further update is made in the document so that we can
participate in the process for updating the document. The discussion can be
formulated as follows:
1. What you want to propose and why
2. Pros and cons of the proposals
3. Invite comments from the members
4. Update the document based on item 3
Items 1 and 2 can be formulated in a simple and concise manner (in fact you
did in many cases).
Please note that I am encouraging for updating, but defining a process how
an editor can update a contribution in absence of any contributions (or
conference calls) from any members other than the editor.
(I also plan to provide my comments on the latest document. However, I am
busy with so many works that I am yet to find time.)
Finally, I appreciate your efforts in carrying this work.
Radhika R. Roy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist at nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:40 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: [H.323 Mobility:] A new H.323 Annex H Draft
> Hi all,
> I have uploaded the new H.323 Annex H Draft to URL:
> Most changes to the previous version are in chapter 7 (H.323 Mobility
> Functional Requirements), most parts of which have been rewritten.
> Some changes have been introduced also to section 10.5.1 concerning the
> contents of the authentication messages towards the AuF. Mr. Kumaar has
> pointed out that authentication values are (normally) calculated over the
> whole GRQ message and thus it is necessary to send the whole GRQ message
> the AuF. I have not found anything that would disprove this point and thus
> assume that this is the way we must specify the authentication procedure.
> I'm also quite aware that the effects of the inclusion of the GRQ message
> have probably not been throughly added to the section, but I wanted to get
> this version out before weekend and still have a mention of the issue in
> draft. I would like to hear (or read) any comments that the experts have
> regarding this section as I'm not a very good expert on H.235.
> Furthermore, I'll try to work out the next version of the annex as soon as
> possible and I'm hoping to add quite much stuff on the information flow
> message content definitions. I would also like to see contributions
> especially on these areas.
> I hope that not all of you are spending your holidays and I actually get
> some comments ;-).
> Anyway, have a nice weekend, everyone!
> Jaakko Sundquist *
> +358 50 3598281 * Audere est Facere!
> jaakko.sundquist at nokia.com *
> 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