Annex Gv2

[Roy, Radhika R]

Hi, Paul:

We have seen the meeting minutes of Australia and, have significant
differences. For example, it is NOT about "interworking" per se as Mr.
Bougant (one of the attendees of Australia meeting) pointed out. We do not
want to develop anymore INEFFICIENT "interworking" as proposed by Intel's
contributions related to the scope of Q.5/16 in the last Australia Rap.
meeting.

(While people can use the same protocol without duplication, why do they
like to develop another protocol for "interworking"?)

Accordingly, emails were also sent out to the Sg16 mailing list voicing our
concerns. So, the Brazil Sg16 meeting, per AT&T contributions, need to focus
on all subjects that have been described in the contributions.

With respect to H.225.0 Annex G, I have made clear what needs to be done.
Nothing that relates directly or indirectly to MOBILITY will be considered
for approval unless the mobility work is finalized (please see the enclosed
email).

Hope this clarifies the things.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Reddy, Paul K [mailto:paul.k.reddy at intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM
To: Roy, Radhika R; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Subject: RE: Annex Gv2


Hi Radhika,

With respect to your point on 2a, Q.5/16 has been defined the Objectives,
scope, work plan for study period 2001-2004 during last Rapporteur's meeting
in Lanceston, Australia. As far as the protocol for H.MMS.1 (Mobility for
Multimedia systems based on H.323) recommendation has not been decided as of
last meeting. Your contributions and other contributions have come in for
Porte Seguro's meeting in Brazil will consider for discussion on Mobility
protocols like H.MMS.General (based on H.225.0 AnnexG or other protocol
etc.)

PS: Paul, I would recommend not to delay the approval of H.225.0 Annex Gv2,
if Annex Gv2 does not include the Mobility work. - Paul

regards,
Paul

Paul K. Reddy
Rapporteur for Q.5/16
Intel Corporation, Mailstop:JF3-377
2111 N.E. 25th Avenue,
Hillsboro, OR - 97229, USA
Office Phone # +1 (503)-264-9896
Mobile Phone # +1 (503)-807-9564
Email: paul.k.reddy at intel.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy at ATT.COM]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Annex Gv2


Hi, Paul:

Let me explain where H.225.0 Annex G may fit with respect to mobility as
well as non-mobility as follows:

1. Anything extension that does NOT deal with MOBILITY in H.225.0 Annex G
version 2 can be considered for approval.

2. Anything that deals with MOBILITY (or with an intention to support
mobility indirectly) in H.225.0 Annex G version 2 MUST NOT be considered for
approval because of the following:

a. The scope and reference points of mobility Q.5/16 needs to be defined
that is consistent with its charter.

b. H.MMS.x work will be defined and completed in accordance to item a.

c. All applications can use the common protocol for HLF/VLF/AuF (and other
value-added services). It will be a new protocol and will NOT have any
application-specific name (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G).

d. As soon as we complete item c, we will see what needs to be done for
H.323. In H.323, we may have to extend H.225.0 RAS + H.225.0 Annex G. These
are application-specific extensions to support MOBILITY (applicable for each
application as well: H.310, H.324, IMT-2000, etc.).

This is what has been proposed by AT&T in all contributions.

Hope this will help.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:06 PM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Annex Gv2


Folks,

The editor of Annex G has recommended that we not approve Annex G at this
meeting, citing that there is insufficient material to warrant approval.  I
have also heard comments from some that additional work should be done in
the area of defining reference point D.  Of course, we also have the open
question of where (if anywhere) Annex G fits into the H.MMS.x work.

For the benefit of those not planning to attend the meeting, please tell me
if you would have objections to *not* approving Annex Gv2 at this meeting.

Thanks,
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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com