On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Tue Jun 6 16:13:38 EDT 2000


Bob,

For messages other than SETUP, I was assuming we could use the existing
h245Control field for H.245 message exchange-- only the SETUP message is a
special case, since it was explicitly disallowed in H.323v2 when fastStart
was also present.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>
Cc: "'Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16'"
<ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4


> Paul,
>
> It would be required in the SETUP, CALL PROCeeding, ALERT, FACILITY, and
> CONNECT message in that all of these messages can be sent before Fast
Start
> is completed or may not be present with Fast Start elements based on v2.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 6:41 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
>
>
> Paul, Francois, and others,
>
> If we were able to get consensus here, I believe we could add a field to
the
> SETUP-UUIE.  I'd rather not put it in the H323-UU-PDU, since it is
intended
> for SETUP only as a means of allowing H.245 to used with fastConnect in a
> backward compatible manner.
>
> We have an entire proposal on verbiage to be added to H.323.  I'll have to
> review that to see what needs changing-- but there's actually a lot of
> description.
>
> Can we agree to introduce a new "earlyH245" field to go along with
> "fastStart" in the SETUP?
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Long" <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
> To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
>
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > While not ideal (nothing is), that's a safe, workable solution. I like
it.
> > Are you proposing adding the new component to the H323-UU-PDU or the
> > Setup-UUIE type? Both locations have their merits. This then should be
the
> > new text for section 8.2.1/H.323: "The calling endpoint shall not
include
> > both a fastStart element and encapsulated H.245 messages in h245Control
in
> > the same Setup message. However, the calling endpoint may include both a
> > fastStart element and encapsulated H.245 messages in earlyH245Control in
> the
> > same Setup message." And then explain what the called endpoint is
supposed
> > to do when fastStart and earlyH245Control are present. While we're at
it,
> > maybe we should define a separate type, i.e.,
> >
> > H245Control ::= SEQUENCE OF OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
> >                                                 -- each octet string may
> contain exactly
> >                                                 -- one H.245 PDU
> >
> > But now how do the two components, h245Control and earlyH245Control
> > otherwise relate to each other, i.e., when fastStart is not included?
> Should
> > we say that if one is present the other shall not be present? That would
> be
> > the clearest, IMO. Not much is gained by allowing both.
> >
> >
> > Remember, the first rule of standards revision is (everybody repeat
after
> > me)...
> >         "Primum non nocere" ("First do no harm.")
> >                 - the Roman physician, Galen
> >
> > Paul Long
> > Smith Micro Software, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 8:14 PM
> > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
> >
> >
> > Francois,
> >
> > I agree that the behavior is desirable, but I still argue that it will
> > break backward compatibility.  If we can agree with a new field
> > "earlyH245" as a special field for SETUP to do essentially the same
> > thing, but only for V4, I would be quite happy-- we get the same end
> > result without V3 and V2 compatibility issues.
> >
> > I do not want to wait until Portland.  The Whitepaper drafts are due
> > before then and I hope that that meeting will be focused on only
> > critical issues in H.323 and that most of our time will be spent on
> > further development of Annexes and perhaps forward thinking on V5 :-)
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 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