Annex Gv2

Reddy, Paul K paul.k.reddy at INTEL.COM
Mon May 21 19:48:17 EDT 2001

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

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


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R [mailto:rrroy at ATT.COM]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:18 AM
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

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


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.


For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list