Third party registration/group registration
Roni Even
Roni_e at ACCORD.CO.IL
Tue Nov 28 05:04:36 EST 2000
All,
I read most of the discussion. I agree that an H.323 entity can register
more then one alias for it self. It can use prefixes to define different
services. As for third party registration it is not defined as such. The
idea is that there is a gatekeeper per zone and if a gateway need to resolve
addresses in two different zones he has to communicate with two gatekeepers.
But I can see a gateway registering a service that let him identify a
specific end point (call it EPA) that uses a signaling protocol that is not
H.323, this will make sense if the gateway will access it using direct
addressing. The problem with this solution is that each gateway or what you
call the registering IWF that will need address resolution to EPA will need
to register it and have some mechanism to know when to update EPA
registration.
Roni Even
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:36 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
All,
Please please PLEASE can we have some more opinions on this important
definition, though. Charles and I simply disagree, and a wider pool of
opinion
is needed in order for consensus to be reached. Although I disagree with
Charles's view I am willing to espouse it if that's the way the majority of
experts see things. Without further input we'll simply go round in circles.
Charles, All,
I believe the fundamental question about "third-partyness" in this context
is
what entity or entities will handle the H.225.0/Q.931 and or H.245
signalling.
My understanding of the type of IWF you are talking about (at least, the way
I
would implement such a thing!) is that the IWF terminates all signalling,
with
RTP data going direct end to end. So it is the entity that is performing
the
registration that will handle all signalling (namely what you in your
SIP-centred way call and IWF and I in my H.323-centred way call a gateway!).
To me this is a fair definition of first-party. The only thing the IWF is
not
terminating is (voice, video and application) data. This does not make the
registration third-party in my opinion. There is no assumption (as far as I
can remember, anyway) that H.323 entities have to handle their own RTP
sessions
- they are required only to exchange addresses to terminate these sessions.
Simple question: What is your definition of a "*true* H.323 entity"? In
what
sense is your gateway/IWF not a "*true* H.323 entity"?
Additive registration is NOT third-party registration by my definition.
Regards,
Chris
"Agboh, Charles" wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I see what you mean. I think you are working under the assumption that
the
> "..other H.323 entities" are *true* H.323 entites. The IWF may give the
> impression that they are H.323 entities but it doesn't mean they are.
>
> In this model, I am assuming that the "third-party" is receving all
> signalling from the GK whether it (the GK) is in DRC or GRC mode.
>
> Q: Do I really care if the "..other H.323 entities" are *true* H.323
> entities or not? A GK probably couldn't say if the "first-party"
being
> registered (the entitry being registered as apposed to the entity
> receiving the registration) is a *true* H.323 entity or not.
> A: It may be usefull. A GK can invoke a special feature if it can
> differentiate.
>
> H.323v4 defines the additive registration feature, which by your
definition
> is a third-party registration, right? So how does the GK know that the
> "first-party" is a *true* H.323 entitry?
>
> Best Regards,
> charles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at isdn-comms.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 6:19 PM
> To: Agboh, Charles
> Cc: 'ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com'
> Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
>
> Charles,
>
> > My undstanding of "third-party" registration is the same as yours.
But,
> in
> > some applications a registration by the IWF may not be on its own
behalf.
> These two sentences contradict each other. Please reread my explanation
of
> my
> understanding, as it is impossible for you to agree with it and believe
what
> you have written in the second sentence above.
> Unless I misunderstand your definition of an "IWF", which I take to be
> synonymous with a "gateway" as defined in the H.323 series of standards.
>
> > H.323v4 provides this feature (a way to bypass the UDP packet size
> > limitation) for this same reason.
> >
> > Does it make sense to have this?, If no, then why not?
> >
> > SupportedProtocols ::= CHOICE
> > {
> > nonStandardData NonStandardParameter,
> > h310 H310Caps,
> > h320 H320Caps,
> > h321 H321Caps,
> > h322 H322Caps,
> > h323 H323Caps,
> > h324 H324Caps,
> > voice
> > .......,
> > SIP SIPCaps
> > }
> This may make sense (and is what I meant when I referred to
> "supportedPrefixes"). If this is a way forward that you believe would be
> useful for SIP gateways I would encourage you to write a formal proposal
to
> an
> ITU SG16 experts meeting on this basis.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Wayman Purvis [mailto:cwp at isdn-comms.co.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:41 AM
> > To: Agboh, Charles
> > Cc: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: Re: Third party registration/group registration
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> > Wrong in my opinion, but I would hope other experts would express their
> > opinions too! The problem is I'm not sure whether this is a question of
> > understanding or of detailed definition of the phrase "third party" in
> this
> > context.
> > My understanding of the phrase "third party registration" would be one
> H.323
> > entity registering at a gatekeeper on behalf of other H.323 entities.
My
> > understanding of the word "registration" of this context is that it can
> only
> > apply to H.323 entities. In this context the IWF can be considered to
be
> at
> > the extreme edge of the H.323 network, so any "registration" it does is
on
> > its
> > own behalf.
> > Maybe what you actually want is some equivalent to the supportedPrefixes
> > that
> > arrived in version 2, for SIP gateways.
> > Whatever we agree you want, though, I think it is worth trying to reach
> some
> > consensus among experts in this group as to what the phrase "third
party"
> > means
> > in this context - as your understanding and mine are clearly in
> > disagreement.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> > "Agboh, Charles" wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > There are applications where an IWF can register an EP from one domain
> > into
> > > another. This allows automatic visibility of EP from one domain from
> > > another. In this case the IWF is registering not only itself but
other
> > EPs.
> > > For this scenario, the third-party entity is the IWF, right?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > charles
> > --
> > Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
> > ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
> > Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND
> > Phone: +44 1344 899 007
> > Fax: +44 1344 899 001
>
> --
> Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
> ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
> Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND
> Phone: +44 1344 899 007
> Fax: +44 1344 899 001
--
Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager
ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road
Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND
Phone: +44 1344 899 007
Fax: +44 1344 899 001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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