Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323?

[Frank Derks]

Hi Manoj,


am I to assume that the first "context" you mention is the use
of H.248 _Signals_ in serviceControlSession elements and that
the third "context" refers to the use of H248Packages in the
supportedH248Packages element in the RRQ?

I assumed, but this may be wrong on second thoughts, that these
two uses were tied together. I.e. supportedH248Packages specifies
from which packages _signals_ may be used.

supportedH248Packages is not required (and should not be used)
for Annex L, as an Audit command can be used to obtain the
supported packages.

Regards,

Frank

-----------------------------------------------------
Frank Derks                    |Tel  +31 35 6893238 |
ServWare                       |Fax  +31 35 6891030 |
Philips Business Communications|P.O. Box 32         |
                               |1200 JD  Hilversum  |
                               |The Netherlands     |
----------------------------------------------------|
E-mail: mailto:frank.derks at philips.com              |
WWW: http://www.sopho.philips.com                   |
-----------------------------------------------------





mpaul at trillium.com on 30-05-2001 19:04:57
To:     ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM@SMTP
Frank Derks/HVS/BE/PHILIPS at EMEA2
cc:
Subject:        RE: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323?
Classification:


Hi Frank,

  H.248 appears in H.323 in three contexts
1) Credit card tones and announcements from Gk.
2) Annex L
3) Endpoints reporting their H248 PackageDescriptors to Gks in RRQ.

Although Annex L defined H.248 messages as Octet Strings, the other
two imported H.248 syntax. There was a proposal in last SG16 meeting
to change them to
Octet Strings as well for the reasons-
 Those who were not willing to support H.248 functionality, would not
have to import the H.248 syntax (For Signals and Pacakges for (1) and (3)
above).

Also these octet strings were proposed to contain PER encoded H.248. (Text
in addition for Annex L) to allow single encoding and decoding scheme,
namely PER for H.323.

I believe, it is due to lightweight reasons (as you pointed out), that
ServiceControlSession also
contained H.248 Signals which could as well be transported using Annex L.

regards
Manoj.

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Derks [mailto:frank.derks at PHILIPS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:24 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Subject: Why use two different "H.248 mechanisms" in H.323?


There are two ways in which H.248 can be used in H.323. One way is through
Annex L Stimulus Signalling, which basically "tunnels" H.248 messages in
H.225.0 Call Signalling Messages (although Annex L only speaks about
"commands",
I assume that "replies" may also be carried).

Another way of carrying H.248 is through the serviceControlSession element,
which can be transported in most of the Call Signalling messages and some of
the RAS messages. Using this mechanism, however, introduces a limitation in
that only H.248 _signals_ may be transported.

If the idea behind the second approach is to have a "lightweight" way of
using
only some of H.248's functionality, then I wonder why H.248 _events_ were
not
included as part of the solution.

Regards,

Frank

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