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

[Paul E. Jones]

Bob,

I think we reached an agreement on this.  We will be adding a new field to
the Setup-UUIE called "earlyH245Control" that will allow an endpoint to
provide tunneled H.245 messages in the SETUP.  The called endpoint will be
required to extract the H.245 messages in that field if it indicates support
for H.245 tunneling in the response message it returns.  The calling
endpoint will know that the field was accepted by the called endpoint if it
learns that the called endpoint supports tunneling AND is a V4 or higher
endpoint.

So fear not.. I believe we can incorporate the text with just a minor change
:-)

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 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4


> Paul,
>
> I was afraid that this might happen.
>
> The changes under discussion were agreed to in Osaka, with the
participants
> understanding the risks.  To not include it in v4 would be a substantive
> change from the agreed content which I challenge as being beyond the
> discression of the editor to make editorial changes.
>
> There is a real problem in that keypad information must be sent before the
> connect message.  This is needed to support network services in the U.S.
> Because the H.245 rules require the exchange of TSC and master-slave
before
> any other messages may be sent, there is a significate delay after fast
> connect before keypad digits may be sent.  In Osaka, several proposal were
> submitted to solve this and other needed negotiation problems.  The agreed
> solution was the proposal for which you have reservations.  This is needed
> in the real world.
>
> PLEASE! find a solutions that will not remove these changes!
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:14 PM
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
>
>
> Paul,
>
> We agreed at the Osaka meeting to allow a SETUP to contain both the
> fastStart and h245Control, but it has not been officially approved by the
> ITU.
>
> As it stands right now, I don't think I can agree to include it in H.323v4
> on the grounds that it breaks backward compatibility with V2-- I just
don't
> see a clean solution here.
>
> I'm opening to hearing more suggestions, but as you pointed out, there are
> two issues:
>   1) H.323v2 states explicitly that it is illegal
>   2) There is no way to know what version to destination EP is before
>      sending this illegal message
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Long" <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
> To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
>
>
> > Pete,
> >
> > Table 13/H.225.0v3 shows that the User-to-User IE is mandatory. What IEs
> do
> > you believe are not mandatory?
> >
> > H.323 states that the fastStart and h245Control components cannot both
be
> > present in the Setup message (do I need to quote it again?). A Setup
> > User-to-User IE containing either or neither component is valid; one
> > containing both is clearly invalid. Why do you think otherwise?
> >
> > H.323, by way of Q.931, requires that the called EP respond with
> > ReleaseComplete with cause 100. There is no other appropriate cause.
> >
> > The feature that should be deprecated is the inclusion of both fastStart
> and
> > h245Control in Setup. I was under the impression that either through
IGv3
> or
> > H.323v4 this had already made it into the standard. If its not too late,
> we
> > should simply remove this feature from any proposed text; if it is too
> late,
> > we should deprecate it because it causes insurmountable backward
> > compatibility problems.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete at TECH-KNOW-WARE.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:31 AM
> > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: On TD26 - Fast TCS and M/S negotiation in H.323v4
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I don't really believe that the release cause you cite is valid.  The
> > IEs
> > are not mandatory, and (taken by themselves) they don't have invalid
> > content.  I don't believe it is the intent of this cause code to signal
> > the
> > sort of thing that we are talking about here either.
> >
> > Are there any other causes and clauses that you think might be more
> > appropriate?
> >
> > Also, when you say "the feature" should be deprecated, what are you
> > referring to as "the feature"?  I'm not quite clear.
> >
> > Pete.
> >
> > =============================================
> > Pete Cordell
> > pete at tech-know-ware.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