H.323 URL

Callaghan, Robert Robert.Callaghan at ICN.SIEMENS.COM
Mon Jun 19 10:58:53 EDT 2000


Paul,

I fully agree with your that we need procedures to support the H.323-URL.

However, before we have the procedures, we goals and objectives.  We
currently have a full set of telephone addresses (E.164, PNP, etc.).  These
addresses can easily transport the adress provided in a "TEL:" URL.  For a
voice only call the format of this URL is better that that proposed for the
H.323 URL, in that it is telephony oriented with the options that maybe
required for this type of call.

We have an e-mail structured address that is not used as e-mail.  The
procedure proposed by Orit reads very similar to the procedure for using and
e-mail address.  What is the objective of a new address format?

I agree that the H.323 URL should support the needs of multi-media H.323
connections (calls).  What are they?  You talk about Conference ID.  What
about media control (If video then.. else..)?  What about application
sharing control?  What about support features (H.450, packages,...)?

Do we include everything in one very complicated URL or do we have multiple
URL covering various areas of H.323?

I agree that we need a lot of discussion.  This discussion will flow into
Portland.  (At least Orit and I agree this is the case.)   A preliminary
discussion on the mailing list will be useful, but we still need the
decisions in Portland.

Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Callaghan
Siemens Enterprise Networks
Tel: +1.561.923.1756    Fax: +1.561.923.1403
Email:  Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:15 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: H.323 URL


Francois,

If I want to provide a means of allowing somebody to call me by placing a
URL on a web page, I need to provide something that can be resolved
universally by H.323 endpoints.  Bob mentioned querying a database-- that's
certainly a possibility, assuming that that database contains all of the
information it needs to resolve an address.

What I am afraid of here is that we are introducing syntax to reach a
resource without defining any procedure.

If I see this url:
h323:paulej at packetizer.com <mailto:h323:paulej at packetizer.com>

What does that tell the H.323 entity?  Is there a GK that is expecting a
LRQ, AccessRequest, or is it something else entirely?  Perhaps the right
solution is to define (in normative text) the procedure for using SRV DNS
records to query the packetizer.com domain.

As Pete rightfully pointed out, an H.323 URL would be the perfect place to
place conference identifiers for multipoint conferences:

h323:conf-server1 at packetizer.com;cid:XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
<mailto:h323:conf-server1 at packetizer.com;cid:XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX>

I think we need to work on the procedural part of this now.  Who is working
on that?

Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: Francois Audet <mailto:audet at NORTELNETWORKS.COM>
To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com <mailto:ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: H.323 URL


I would agree with Bob here.

Using an H.323 URL for a telephone number would imply that you can only be
reached using H.323. Is this you intention?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Callaghan, Robert [ mailto:Robert.Callaghan at ICN.SIEMENS.COM
<mailto:Robert.Callaghan at ICN.SIEMENS.COM> ]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 5:39 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <mailto:ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
> Subject: Re: H.323 URL
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I think that this is getting complicated.
>
> I did not envision the use of the H.323-URL to encompase a
> telephone number.
> I only conceede for the purpose of progress.
>
> I saw the H.323-URL to be an identifier that would be used to access a
> database.  The DNS portion would identify the database, the
> userID would be
> the entry in the database.  The database would then return
> the necessary
> information to complete the call.  It is highly propable that this
> information would include an E.164 or PNP address.  This is
> especially true
> when the call must be ompleted over the SCN.
>
> I saw telephone numbers being defined in the "Tel:" URL
> defined in RFC2806.
> This URL covers many of optional fields needed to make an SCN
> call which are
> not presently covered in H.323.
>
> If we are to have multiple forms of an H.323 URL, I would
> prefer to have
> multi-URL IDs.
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. (By the way, the complex, cover everything, is where the
> last try at an
> H.323 URL diaappeared.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Callaghan
> Siemens Enterprise Networks
> Tel: +1.561.923.1756    Fax: +1.561.923.1403
> Email:  Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [ mailto:paulej at packetizer.com
<mailto:paulej at packetizer.com> ]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:11 AM
> To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Orit Levin'
> Cc: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
> (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: H.323 URL
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm still surprised that you don't want to see the URL expanded...
> especially to address party number types.  Here is is currently:
>
> H323-URL        = "H323:"  user ["@"  hostport]
> user            = username | phone-number
> username        =  *( unreserved | escaped | "&" | "=" | "+"
> | "$" | "," )
> hostport        = host [ ":" port ]
> host            = hostname | IPv4address
> hostname        = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
> domainlabel     = alphanum | alphanum *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
> toplabel        = alpha | alpha *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
> IPv4address     = 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit
> port            = *digit
> reserved        = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" |
> "+" |"$" | ","
> digits          = 1*DIGIT
>
> However, to be useful, information that follows the "h323:" should be
> something in a form that an H.323 Gatekeeper can resolve.
> Those things
> include:
>   dialedDigits
>   h323-ID
>   email-ID
>   partyNumber
> or one of the transportAddress types.
>
> This seems to be a reasonable syntax:
>
> H323-URL        = "H323:" Address
> Address         = AliasAddress / TransportAddress
> AliasAddress    = dialedDigits / h323-ID / email-ID / partyNumber
> dialedDigits    = "dialedDigits=" 1*digit
> h323-ID         = "h323-ID=" 1*OCTET   ; UTF-8 string represting the
> BMPString
> email-ID        = "email-ID=" email-ID-spec
> partyNumber     = e164Number / dataPartyNumber / telexPartyNumber /
> privateNumber
>                 / nationalStandardPartyNumber
> email-ID-spec   = mailbox / group
> group           = phrase ":" [ mailbox ] ";"
> phrase          = 1*word
> word            = atom / quoted-string
> atom            = 1*CHAR  ; any CHAR except specials, SPACE and CTLs
> specials        = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@"   ; Must be in quoted-
>                 /  "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <">  ;  string, to use
>                 /  "." / "[" / "]"              ;  within a word.
> quoted-string   =
> mailbox         = addr-spec / phrase route-addr
> addr-spec       = local-part "@" domain
> local-part      = word *("." word)
> domain          = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
> sub-domain      = domain-ref / domain-literal
> domain-ref      = atom
> domain-literal  = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]"
> dtext           = 1*CHAR  ; Any CHAR excluding "[", "]", "\" & CR,
>                           ; & including linear-white-space>
> linear-white-space = 1*([CRLF] LWSP-char)
> LWSP-char       = SP / HTAB
> quoted-pair     = "\" CHAR
> phrase          = 1*word
> route-addr      = "<" [route] addr-spec ">"
> route           = "@" domain ":"
> e164Number      = "e164Number=" publicTypeOfNumber "," digits
> digits          = 1*(DIGIT / "#" / "*" / ",")
> publicTypeOfNumber = "unknown" / "internationalStandard" /
> "nationalNumber"
>                    / "networkSpecificNumber" / "subscriberNumber" /
>                    / "abbreviatedNumber"
> dataPartyNumber = "dataPartyNumber=" digits
> telexPartyNumber= "telexPartyNumber=" digits
> privatePartyNumber = "privatePartyNumber="
> privateTypeOfNumber "," digits
> privateTypeOfNumber = "unknown" / "level2RegionalNumber" /
> "level1RegionalNumber"
>                     / "pISNSpecificNumber" / "localNumber" /
> "abbreviatedNumber"
> TransportAddress = ipAddress / ipSourceRoute / ipxAddress / ip6Address
>                  / netBios / nsap / nonStandardAddress
> ipAddress       = ip ":" port
> ip              = 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
> port            = 1*DIGIT
> ipSourceRoute   = ip ":" port "," ip *1("," ip) ";" ("strict"
> / "loose")
> ipxAddress      = 1*DIGIT ":" 1*DIGIT ":" 1*DIGIT
> ip6Address      = 1*HEXDIGIT 14*(":" [1*HEXDIGIT]) 1*HEXDIGIT
> HEXDIGIT        = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
> netBios         =    ;; and so forth
> nsap            =
> nonStandardAddress =
>
> Now, there may be an error or two in there, but at least it
> is more complete
> and an H.323 system knows how to work with these.  (Note I
> did not address
> the new V4 alias "mobileIUM")
>
> If we used this grammar, I don't think we would need a lot of
> strange rules
> about what you do with the URL.  Basically, you take it apart
> according to
> its internal parts to form an alias address that a Gatekeeper
> can resolve.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> To: "'Orit Levin'" <orit at radvision.com>; "'Paul E. Jones'"
> <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>
> Cc: "Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study
> Group 16 (E-mail)"
> <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:50 PM
> Subject: RE: H.323 URL
>
>
> > Orit,
> >
> > In my opinion, an email-ID alias conforms to RFC-822 and is
> interpreted
> > according the rules stated in H.225.0.  An H.323-URL-ID conforms to
> > TD-40a/Osaka and is interpreted according to the rules
> stated in TD-40a.
> An
> > H.323-ID is a character string without any rules of
> interpretation.  I see
> > no need to blend these contexts.  All three addressing
> modes can be use;
> > each in its own context.
> >
> > However, these are my opinion.  Maybe more work is needed
> in Portland.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Robert Callaghan
> > Siemens Enterprise Networks
> > Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403
> > Email: Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Orit Levin [ mailto:orit at radvision.com <mailto:orit at radvision.com>
]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 11:45 AM
> > To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Paul E. Jones'
> > Cc: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
> > (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: H.323 URL
> >
> >
> > Hello Bob and Paul!
> > I don't see backwards compatibility problem, when the URL
> says explicitly
> > H323-URL. An appropriate change may be to state, that the
> default meaning
> of
> > url, encoded into email-ID alias, is according to RFC-822.
> > Now, I feel a need to put a chapter explaining what is the
> meaning of
> email
> > URL (apart from its syntax) when used in H.323 Network.
> There is some
> > explanation in H.225.0 Appendix IV. Do you find it clear
> and sufficient?
> > Orit Levin
> > RADVision Inc.
> > 575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
> > Mahwah, NJ 07430
> > Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
> > Fax: 1 201 529 3516
> > www.radvision.com
> > orit at radvision.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Callaghan, Robert <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
> > To: 'Paul E. Jones' <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>; 'Orit Levin'
> > <orit at radvision.com>
> > Cc: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study
> Group 16 (E-mail)
> > <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:56 AM
> > Subject: H.323 URL
> >
> >
> > >Paul,
> > >
> > >I have a backward compatibility item for you to think about.
> > >
> > >TD-40/Osaka states that the H323-URL may be coded into the
> email-ID for
> > >alias address.  However, H.225.0 states that the email-ID
> shall conform
> to
> > >RFC822.  This is an exclusionary requirement in that other
> standards may
> > not
> > >be used.  Also, Note 4 of the BNF definition of the
> H323-URL clearly
> states
> > >that that the H323-URL is *not* compatible with RFC822.
> > >
> > >Therefor, I propose that the H323-URL cannot be coded into
> the email-ID
> for
> > >alias address because of compatibility problems.
> > >
> > >Bob
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Robert Callaghan
> > >Siemens Enterprise Networks
> > >Tel: +1.561.923.1756 Fax: +1.561.923.1403
> > >Email: Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000619/fe31a304/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list