H.323 Annex O

Roy, Radhika R, ALARC rrroy at ATT.COM
Thu Jun 1 11:58:25 EDT 2000


Hi, Christian:

I am glad that you have described what exactly I wanted to say. I completely
agree with you.

All emails were sent to get the point across that you have just described.

Hope that every member will also agree with your clarification.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Groves [SMTP:Christian.Groves at ERICSSON.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 8:21 PM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      Re: H.323 Annex O
>
> Hello Roy,
>
> I abit confused at all these emails flying around about the H.246
> SIP-H.323 Appendix. There are alot of could's and would's in the Sg16
> meeting report and I believe the underlying sentiment was that we would
> let the IETF continue with their work and monitor it. At a later stage
> we could reference this work in an informational Appendix.
>
> I agree on your desire to have one document describing the Interworking.
> I hope that interested parties contribute to the work done in the IETF
> rather than starting competing work in SG16 at this stage.
>
> Regards, Christian
>
> "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Glen:
> >
> > It is nice to know that an H.246 SIP-H.323 Interworking APPENDIX will be
> > created.
> >
> > Per earlier emails, it appears that this APPENDIX will be informational
> one.
> >
> > With respect to presenting the contributions, I tried to bring
> contributions
> > including authors of the Internet Drafts for the SIP-H.323 Interworking
> in
> > the last SG16 meeting held in Geneva on February 2000. However, the US
> Dept
> > of State did not accept the contributions of the organizations (e.g.,
> > Universities) and companies who were not the members of the ITU-T SG16
> > (either independently or jointly with other companies who are the
> members of
> > the ITU-T).
> >
> > However, in IETF, it has not been the case. That is why, the authors of
> > those internet drafts are working to create an Informational RFC.
> >
> > Now it appears that the SG16 will also be creating an informational
> > APPENDIX.
> >
> > It appears that the IETF's Informational RFC will be produced first.
> >
> > Let us keep our eyes open how we can create a unified informational
> standard
> > cooperating in both standard organizations. Some suggestions have been
> made
> > in the earlier emails.
> >
> > Our objectives should be to create one single standard for the same
> thing.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Radhika R. Roy
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Glen Freundlich [SMTP:ggf at LUCENT.COM]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:34 PM
> > > To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > Subject:      Re: H.323 Annex O
> > >
> > > While it is true that work is progressed through written contributions
> to
> > > study
> > > group and rapporteurs' meetings, those written contributions can be
> > > created
> > > jointly via email, conference calls, over a plate of bull fries at
> Bruce's
> > > Bar,
> > > etc. Note that joint creation of a contribution does not guarantee its
> > > approval
> > > (although probability of approval certainly increases when a larger
> group
> > > of
> > > people are involved in the creation of a proposal).
> > >
> > > In the case of a jointly created contribution, it seems reasonable
> that
> > > someone
> > > from that group would be able to present the contribution at a
> meeting. If
> > > someone has a contribution they would like to present at a meeting,
> but is
> > > unable
> > > to attend, it's certainly possible to ask someone who plans to attend
> the
> > > meeting
> > > to present the material.
> > >
> > > As for the SIP-H.323 interworking annex, check the meeting report:
> > >
> > > "Call signaling could be captured in an appendix to H.246. This
> appendix
> > > would
> > > first address simple audio interworking, covering topics such as
> mapping
> > > messages
> > > between H.323 and SIP. This is work that is currently in progress in
> the
> > > IETF
> > > (not an official work item at this time, but an unofficial task in the
> SIP
> > > working group). This appendix would define the "preferred interworking
> > > mode" of
> > > H.323; we'd expect the SIP experts to define the preferred
> interworking
> > > mode of
> > > SIP. We need to capture the essence of each of the functional
> entities.
> > > Contributions are requested."
> > >
> > > SIP-H.323 interworking would be described in an appendix to H.246 (not
> > > H.323
> > > Annex O). This would describe the "preferred interworking mode", which
> > > would
> > > specify, for example, the use of H.323 fast start. It might describe
> the
> > > relationship between the functional entities (e.g., is the SIP-H.323
> > > interworking
> > > function in a gateway or gatekeeper for the H.323 side, and in a SIP
> proxy
> > > for
> > > the SIP side?). It would describe message mapping (e.g., the H.323
> Setup
> > > message
> > > maps to a SIP Invite message, and the called party number IE is mapped
> to
> > > the To
> > > header).
> > >
> > > Glen
> > >
> > >
> > > Chip Sharp wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 09:59 AM 5/30/00 -0400, Roy, Radhika R, ALARC wrote:
> > > > ...snip...
> > > > >There are also no mechanisms in the ITU-T SG16 to accept the
> > > contributions
> > > > >for the companies that can afford to communicate via emails only. I
> > > guess
> > > > >that the best way is to have the RFC from the IETF that will have
> all
> > > inputs
> > > > >from all companies that invented the interworking solution. The
> SG16
> > > can
> > > > >then have the RFC for their use to make a formal standard (with
> more
> > > > >additions if needed).
> > > >
> > > > It is true that SG16 still operates mainly on the basis of written
> > > > contributions to meetings and not on mail lists like IETF WG.  It is
> > > also
> > > > true that non-ITU members have a hard time participating in ITU SG
> > > > work.  Even if a company is an ITU member, attending all the
> meetings
> > > > around the world is a travel burden on small companies (even big
> > > > companies). However, an IETF WG can submit a written contribution to
> > > SG16
> > > > via existing mechanisms. Usually, this is initiated via consensus of
> the
> > > WG
> > > > and/or by WG chair via the ISOC VP - Standards.  Of course, it
> requires
> > > > someone to represent that contribution at the SG16 meetings.  The
> SG16
> > > > Rapporteurs have been very open in the past to inviting non-ITU
> member
> > > > experts to Rapporteur Meetings to further the work.  The SG16 mail
> list
> > > has
> > > > been one of the more active SG mail lists in actually discussing
> > > technical
> > > > issues.  And SG16's working documents are available for review as
> well
> > > (at
> > > > least from Rapporteur's Meetings).  It will be nice if ITU could
> codify
> > > > some of these examples at WTSA.
> > > >
> > > > I understand the desire to do the work in one place.  It is also
> true
> > > that
> > > > SG16 can reference an IETF RFC in its recommendations.  However, if
> it
> > > is
> > > > an informational RFC, it can't be a normative reference in ITU.
> > > > ...snip...
> > > > >If you think that any improvements need to be done in the solutions
> > > proposed
> > > > >in the contributions of the IETF (please see the references
> provided in
> > > my
> > > > >email), please submit the proposal in the IETF. We can then use the
> > > > >Informational RFC as an input for a formal standard in the SG16. In
> > > this
> > > > >way, we can get the best the both worlds having a "single common
> > > standard
> > > > >for SIP-H.323 Interworking".
> > > >
> > > > Remember an ITU Recommendation cannot make a normative reference to
> an
> > > > Informational RFC.
> > > > If there is no new protocol work being done, the H.323-SIP
> interworking
> > > > could conceivably become a BCP (Best Current Practice) some day.
> > > >
> > > > >The key is that the SG16 cannot use the interworking solution that
> has
> > > been
> > > > >"invented" by the other companies or institutions without their
> consent
> > > and
> > > > >participation. I personally feel very strongly that the SG16 cannot
> not
> > > > >"invent" a NEW interworking solution of its own that will NOT
> include
> > > the
> > > > >solutions proposed by others in the IETF.
> > > >
> > > > The ITU can incorporate by (normative or non-normative) reference to
> any
> > > > RFC.  The IETF has an IPR policy that isn't too different from ITU
> (I
> > > don't
> > > > think).  Current A.5 procedures require that IETF provide a written
> > > > agreement to allow normative references to an RFC (I don't remember
> ever
> > > > seeing one of these, but there may be a blanket agreement).  There
> are
> > > > proposals to drop this requirement in the next version of A.5.
> > > >
> > > > Any IPR contained in IETF RFCs are covered by IETF IPR policy.  It
> is
> > > true
> > > > that a company that has declared IPR in an IETF RFC may not know it
> is
> > > > being referenced in ITU and therefore may not submit an IPR
> statement to
> > > > ITU.  Therefore the IPR would only be covered by the IETF IPR
> statement
> > > > (this brings up interesting legal questions, but I'll leave that up
> to
> > > the
> > > > lawyers.).  This should only be a real problem if the invention were
> > > > included in the ITU Recommendation by some means other than
> reference.
> > > >
> > > > So the bottom line is that there are mechanisms to share work in ITU
> and
> > > > IETF even without all the formal mechanisms worked out between
> Megaco
> > > and
> > > > Q.14.  However, if the work is going to be cooperative, such an
> > > agreement
> > > > is probably desirable.
> > > >
> > > > Good Luck!
> > > > Chip
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Chip Sharp                 CTO Consulting Engineering
> > > > Cisco Systems
> > > > Reality - Love it or Leave it.
> > > > http://www.netaid.org
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> > > > listserv at mailbag.intel.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > Glen Freundlich                       ggf at lucent.com
> > > Lucent Technologies                   office: +1 303 538 2899
> > > 11900 N. Pecos                        fax: +1 303 538 3907
> > > Westminster, Colorado 80234  USA
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 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
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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