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

[Pete Cordell]

Bob,

Thanks for your comments...

At the moment I can't see any benefit in doing a bit of H.245 before doing
fast start.  Fast start is really only saving you a round trip, and if you
don't do any fast start for that period, then surely you might as well have
done it using H.245 anyway.  I might be missing something, so please explain
what you have in mind.

As starting H.245 kills off fast start in current systems, I was assuming
that once the fast start data in the new arrangement had been handled it
would also be killed off.  Put another way, from my point of view I was
seeing the fast start as a one shot deal which are effectively fast virtual
OLCs.  My gut feeling is that allowing them later introduces complications.
I would be interested in other peoples comments on the implications of this.

I think I prefer your suggestion about sticking with the early H.245 tunnel
rather than switching to the existing tunnel.  I was merely trying to align
the text with what Paul J proposed.

Pete.

=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware
pete at tech-know-ware.com
+44 1473 635863
=============================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Gilman <rrg at LUCENT.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Sent: 06 June 2000 17:01
Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4


> Pete-
> Thanks for the writeup on earlyH245Control.  I would like
> to suggest that make acceptance of fastStart independent
> of the acceptance of earlyH245Control.  It might be useful
> for the called endpoint (or gatekeeper) to accept early
> H.245 and proceed with TCS and M/S negotiations before
> it establishes any media channel via the FastStart procedures.
> This could be done by permitting the earlyH245Control element
> in all messages (like fastStart), or in the basic H323-UU-PDU
> (like h245Control).  That way, FastStart is accepted by the
> return of a fastStart element, and acceptance of early H.245 is
> clearly accepted by the return of an earlyH245Control element.
> The use of the earlyH245Control tunnel would then be enabled.
> (Is there any reason to move to the h245Control tunnel?)
> Should we prohibit both an earlyH245Control and an h245Control
> element in the same message?  What do you think?
> -Bob
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Bob Gilman       rrg at lucent.com      +1 303 538 3868
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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