H.323 Annex I

Stephan Wenger stewe at CS.TU-BERLIN.DE
Tue Sep 19 05:45:32 EDT 2000


I mentioned this already in Portland:  What you are doing is
essentially to create new RTP payload specs.  I don't want
to be too painful and insist that this is IETF/AVT work, but
you should at least cross-post requests like this to rem-conf
as well, because there (and not necessarily in Q.13/16) is
the expertise for payload specs.

Also it makes IMHO no sense to have this stuff defined in
Annex I without an aligned RTP payload spec, because it
would make interoperability between SIP and H.323 mobile
systems impossible.


At 10:32 AM 9/19/00 +0200, Baese Gero wrote:
>Dear Experts,
>at the Portland Meeting a controversial discussion arised
>about the new Annex I specification. Several misunderstandings
>between the participants as well as about the outcome of the
>Osaka Meeting were the reasons.
>At the moment we(Siemens) are trying to establish a
>co-operation with UCLA as well as the editor of the Annex I
>in order to find the best possible solution for the standard. We
>addressed both of them directly.
>If a merger of the both proposals will be possible we will work
>it out together and present it at the next rapporteurs meeting.
>Further we want to ask all experts for their technical assistance. Please
>provide us with more requirements as well as scenarios you can think
>of Annex I would be used for.
>Best Wishes
>Gero Baese
>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