H.323 Annex I Progress

Adam Li adamli at icsl.ucla.edu
Tue Jan 30 01:05:07 EST 2001


Mr. Jones,

Thank you for your email and your concerns.

We are trying to make progress on an agreed simulation condition. We just
got the response from Mr. Baese on the simulation conditions we sent on
12/21/2000. It appears there are still several controversial issues (please
see my other email). It does take quite some time to run the simulation, and
we understand the meeting deadline is approaching. We will do our best to
work it out with the Siemens team and hope we can resolve the issues and
reach an agreement as early as possible.

I will keep everyone updated on the progress. If you (or any other
interested parties) have any comments on the issues, we would love to hear
your opinions and suggestions.

Adam Li


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:36 PM
> To: Baese Gero; adamli at ICSL.UCLA.EDU
> Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I
>
>
> Mr. Bäse and Mr. Li,
>
> You will have to refresh my memory on this, but was Mr. Skran's
> request that
> you produce test results before the meeting in March or produce a
> test plan
> by that time?
>
> I would guess that, since I see these postings to the SG16 mailing list,
> that little cooperation is taking place between the two sides on Annex I.
> Is that an accurate assumption?
>
> I hope that we can reach some agreements on this before and during that
> meeting.  I'd like to see some of the scenery in Tasmania :-)
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baese Gero" <Gero.X.Baese at MCHP.SIEMENS.DE>
> To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:18 AM
> Subject: H.323 Annex I
>
>
> Dear Mr. Li, experts,
>
>
> as you wished we kindly reviewed your paper. Here are our conclusions:
> *       it does not incorporate both the conditions used in your
> simulation
>         and the scenario we proposed in APC-1993 correctly
> *       it does not incorporate the decisions of the group at the Geneva
> meeting
> *       relations to practical usage are missing
> To replenish this paper with all the necessary information would take to
> long.
>
> We are running out of time. Therefor we completed APC-1993 with the few
> missing values out of your paper. An additional section with the proposed
> internet tests is now included. Please be so kind to supplement
> this section
> with your suggestions. We hope you can finally agree on that
> joint scenario
> document. Again, it is very important to have a complete scenario
> instead of
>
> a collection of values to make our work tangible for everybody within the
> group.
>
> A few points are still under discussion. Using a rate control for example
> does
> not make much sense in our case. It is not part of any standard and can be
> optimized to support one or the other method.
> To regiment the length of slices is only in favour of the UCLA proposal.
> Therefore
> we don't want to see this restriction within the test scenario.
>
> It is still impossible to implement the UCLA proposal with the documents
> available.
> We were asking you several times concerning technical obscurities but your
> answer
> is still missing.
>
> We are supposed to use the standard ITU-T code of H.263 for the tests. As
> far
> as we aware there is no official version including all necessary parts of
> H.263.
> That is to say only H.26L can be used for the tests. If you know a place
> where
> the appropriate software is available please provide us with the link.
>
> Best Wishes
> Gero Baese
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Gero Bäse
> Siemens AG                  Tel.:  +49 89 636 53193
> Corporate Technology      Fax: +49 89 636 52393
> Networks and Multimediacommunication    CT IC 2
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  <<APC-1993r2.doc>>
>
>
>




More information about the sg16-avd mailing list