AW: AW: Annex Gv2

Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC ID 71 Karl.Klaghofer at ICN.SIEMENS.DE
Wed May 23 12:11:23 EDT 2001


Paul made a reasonable proposal.

Regards,
Karl

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2001 16:21
An: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Betreff: Re: AW: Annex Gv2


Ernst,

I have proposed previously that we consider extracting Annex G from H.225.0
and letting it stand on its own (as H.22x, for example).  If we did that,
perhaps it would address some people's concerns.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Horvath Ernst" <ernst.horvath at SIEMENS.AT>
To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:38 AM
Subject: AW: Annex Gv2


> Paul,
>
> I welcome the proposal not to approve H.225.0 annex G v2 now.
>
> In my contribution to Q.5/16 I suggest to make the mobility management
> protocol a "profile" of the annex G protocol, after adding the few extras
> that mobility management would require. However, some members  strongly
> oppose to calling mobility management "H.225.0 annex G". Since the arguing
> is about names rather than content, it would be undesirable to duplicate
the
> work and define nearly identical protocols in two different
recommendations.
>
>
> Maybe we can define a "master protocol" in a separate recommendation and
> then derive various profiles from this master protocol: for the current
> annex G (reference point A), for reference point B (GK-BE), for mobility
> management, etc.
>
> Regards,
> Ernst Horvath
> Siemens AG
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
> > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2001 06:14
> > An: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Betreff: 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
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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