Draft Status Update

Agboh, Charles Charles.Agboh at GTS.COM
Thu Nov 30 08:02:52 EST 2000


Bob,

what sort of problem are you talking about?

charles
-----Original Message-----
From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan at ICN.SIEMENS.COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:38 PM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Draft Status Update


Paul,

Based on the rule that the SIP-H.323 gateway appears to the endpoints as an
H.323 firewall, then this will work.  If there ever is any difference, then
there is a problem

I prefer to keep the "h323" designation.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:33 PM
To: Callaghan, Robert; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: Draft Status Update


Bob,

I was not suggesting that we use the h323-ID field any differently-- it was
the "h323" field inside the supportedProtocols choice.  It is used to
indicate a gateway that gateways to H.323 devices.  However, it could serve
just as well to say it gateways to any IP telephony protocol.  That's why I
suggested we call it "ipgw".

Whether we do that or add a "sip" field makes no difference to me, but the
latter option may take 2 years.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Callaghan, Robert" <Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com>
To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <paulej at PACKETIZER.COM>;
<ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:18 AM
Subject: RE: Draft Status Update


> Paul,
>
> I thought that the object of the IWF is to make the mixing of H.323
> terminals and SIP terminals transparent.
>
> However, I could see supporting SIP: URLs in the H.323 URL field along
with
> the H.323 URL.  This would be possible under the URL rules for H.323v4.  I
> would also expect SIP terminals to support the H.323 URL.
>
> The does not solve the problem of true E.164 Ids or the TEL: URL.  A true
> E.164 Id does not allow for a service prefix.  In that this is the normal
Id
> for voice calls, it must have a solution.  An added problem is "Number
> Portability" which tends to kill number grouping.
>
> I do not accept the concept of hidden usages of any field.  Therefor I do
> not support the use of the H.323ID field having a special format that
> indicates a SIP connection.  The H.323ID field should remain a free format
> string.
>
> As it was stated, the gateway identifieds as having H.323 protocol is used
> by firewalls doing H.323-H.323.  Also voice indicates any gateway support
> voice only connections.  These should be mis-used.  Adding a new protocol
> type for a gateway would have to wait.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:08 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: Re: Draft Status Update
>
>
> Charles,
>
> I have discussed that idea with people before.
>
> I'm certainly open to the idea of adding a "sip" codepoint.  However,
since
> H.323v4 was just approved, we'd have to wait for 2 years to get it in
there.
> We might be able to persuade folks to use the "h323" field for IP GWs and
> document that in the H.323 Implementers Guide-- perhaps even changing the
> name in v5 to "ipgw".
>
> 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



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list