Annex Gv2

Reddy, Paul K paul.k.reddy at INTEL.COM
Tue May 22 19:58:55 EDT 2001


Paul,

With respect to two questions mentioned below on interaction between GK and
BE, I agree with you that they are not addressed   adequately at this time.
Which are needed to be addressed in Q.5/16 (Mobility for Multimedia Systems
and services) for H.MMS.1, H.MMS.2, H.MMS.3 recommendations.

I welcome the relevant experts input and contributions on this topic to SG16
meeting at Porte Seguro,Brazil.

regards,
Paul
Rapporteur for Q.5/16


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:14 PM
To: Reddy, Paul K; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: Re: Annex Gv2


Paul,

I think the decisions made for H.225.0 Annex Gv2 as it relates to Q.5 work
should be considered, but I stress even more the other two issues: the
editor feels that the content has not changed significantly enough and
comments I've received from others relating to reference point D.  I believe
the latter two issues are most significant.

Two questions I hear from people often are "How does the GK talk to the BE?"
and "What good does it do to have the usage information in Annex G when it
can't be passed to/from the GK?"  Consideration should be given to whether
those questions are adequately answered (which they're not) and whether we
want to answer those question within the protocol at this time.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reddy, Paul K" <paul.k.reddy at INTEL.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:48 PM
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
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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