Minutes of the 3rd Q.5 Teleconference jointly with Q.2 and Q.G ex perts; January 25, 16:00 - 17:35 CET

Euchner Martin ICN M SR 3 Martin.Euchner at ICN.SIEMENS.DE
Mon Jan 28 03:46:41 EST 2002


Minutes of the 3rd Q.5 Teleconference jointly with Q.2 and Q.G experts

January 25, 16:00 - 17:35 CET

Participants:
*       Minor Gleason (CICSO), H.225.0 Annex GV2 Editor
*       Martin Euchner (Siemens AG), H.235 Annex G.1 Editor
*       Paul Reddy (Intel Corp), Q.5 Rapporteur
*       Ernst Horvath (Siemens AG); Editor of H.22x and of H.MMS.1
*       Francois Bougant (France Telecom), Editor of H.MMS.0
*       Radhika Roy (ATT)

Mr. Euchner volunteered as teleconference chair and took down notes for the
meeting minutes as shown below.


Agenda:
1.      H.22x Status and progress
2.      H.MMS.1 Status and progress
3.      H.MMS.0 Status and progress
4.      H.235 Annex G.1 and new key management protocol: status and progress
5.      H.225.0 Annex Gv2 Status and progress
6.      Resolution of potential between H.22x and H.225.0 Annex Gv2
7.      Open Issues
8.      Discussion on protocol design
9.      Preparation for the Geneva SG meeting
10.     AOB


After the initial get together and introduction, the agenda was settled. The
goal of this teleconference was to obtain understanding in the current
situation of the drafts, resolve critical and controversial issues and
prepare for the SG16 meeting ahead.
As part of this, the editors gave a brief status report on the draft
recommendations.

Ad 1)
                Mr. Horvath first gave some background information on the
decision made in Dublin, to create a separate draft recommendation H.22x for
mobility purposes. The current draft as submitted in a recent delayed
contribution shows only minor changes against the previous version since the
last teleconference. The editor believes that the document is ready to be
finalized to go into consent.

Ad 2)
                Then, Mr. Horvath reported on the status of H.MMS.1. That
draft has not been updated since the last teleconference. The content is
seen as stable and the editor believes that the document is ready to be
finalized to go into consent.

Ad 3.)
                Mr. Bougant gave status on H.MMS.0. That draft is scheduled
for consent in October 2002. He feels that there is not yet full consensus
upon the contents and some more work and considerations are necessary. It
was agreed that the topic of H.MMS.0 is not as urgent for the upcoming SG
meeting; thus, this agenda item was postponed.

Ad 4.)
                Mr. Euchner pointed to two delayed contributions regarding
H.235 Annex G. One contribution requests to separate security for
user/terminal mobility from the generic mobility management security issues.
This would narrow the scope of H.235 Annex G.1. It is proposed to address
the user/terminal mobility security issues in a distinct H.235 annex G.1.
                Another delayed contribution proposes an entirely new and
improved key management & security protocol for H.235 Annex G.1. That
document has undergone substantial revision since the last teleconference:
several open issues are now solved such as terminal authentication, missing
procedures added and much more editorial cleanup.

Ad 5).

                Mr. Gleason briefly reported on the situation regarding
H.225.0 annex Gv2. He mentioned to have an alternative draft in preparation,
but he has not made any submissions yet. This would depend on the outcome of
the teleconference, he said.


Ad 6.)
                Some emails have been exchanged via the reflector prior to
the conference, addressing concerns and attempts on clarification on
potential overlap between H.225.0 Annex G and H.22x.

                The editor pointed out that he removed the overlap on the
border elements. He has chosen a neutral term "peer entity" that could be
applied to any mobility functional entity. The group agreed to this
procedure and the concerns were basically settled.

                The next question was how to document this important
distinction? Further Mr. Bougant asked how H.22x relates against
call-related services with open interfaces of service control nodes and
external databases of a generic mobility management protocol?

                It was generally understood that H.22x goes far beyond H.323
without explicitly addressing call related services. However, mobility and
management issues are within the scope of H.22x.


                It was agreed that keeping H.22x separate from H.225.0 Annex
G is seen as the better and clearer way.
                A clear and unambiguous name of draft H.22x needs to be
chosen. Some ideas such as "Communication protocol among entities",
"Mobility of Multimedia Systems" or the editors title in the delayed
contribution should be considered as input. However, it was also pointed
out, that the title should somehow address the relationship with call
control and in general, some taxonomy would really be helpful. The
terminology and scope should be general enough and as such not be limited to
Annex G and border elements.

                As an action item, the editor(s) will work this issue out
and make some proposals for that matter (first on mailing list if possible
and then as input to the SG16 Q.5 discussion).

Ad 7.)
                Several open issues in the drafts deserve resolution until
finalizing the documents. In general, all experts are requested to carefully
review the available documents for consent and assist in resolving any
existing or new open issues.

                The editors briefly touched the most urgent issues and
showed where more work is needed.

7.1 Open issues in the H.22x Delayed Contribution:

                - Page 8 points out an open issue regarding the different
usage of TPKT for UDP vs. TCP. That problem actually refers to Annex G.1,
but it is not fully understood yet in the light of H.22x. As no Annex Gv1
experts were present who could give reasoning, it was suggested to raise
this issue on the mailing list, perhaps additionally asking VocalTec on some
hints.

                - The AccessRequest messages have been removed in H.22x.
However, some more input is needed regarding the optional features. This
appears not really crucial as this issue is considered as for further study.

                - Editors note 1 in section 5.4: It was proposed to use the
neutral term "peer element" instead of "border element".
                - The second editors note could be removed.

                - The OID for H.22x is proposed to be the same as for
H.225.0 Annex G unless someone comes with a counterproposal.

                A question was raised how to potentially incorporate and
address further messages for H.22x at some point in the future. It was said,
that doing this would be well possible, based upon the available extension
mechanism.

                - An editorial inconsistency was pointed out regarding full
names such as AccessRejection (Annex G, H.22x) vs. AuthenticationReject
(H.235 Annex G.1). It was agreed to use the long names consistently in all
documents; the editors of H.22x and H.235 Annex G.1 will change the text
accordingly.

7.2 Open issues in H.MMS.1:

                - An open issue appears on page 2 regarding the
identification to put into the address pattern (email ID or URL form?).
While no apparent solution was immediately available, experts are requested
to think about this issue and come up with proposals.

                - It was desired to have the Q.2 experts review the correct
and inline usage of the RAS messages.

                - Q.5 experts should review the used terminology such as
e.g. "H.323 mobile terminal" or consider potential alternative names like
"hosting terminal".

                - The H.MMS.1 architecture is described to be fully
self-contained without any forward reference to H.MMS.0 generic mobility
management architecture. Mr. Bougant considers H.MMS.1 architecture as a
subset of the H.MMS.1 architecture, where H.MMS.0 addresses a broader scope
and being separate from the H.MMS.1 with H.323 specific aspects. It was also
said that the names and reference points were chosen differently from those
in H.MMS.0.


Ad 10)
                Mr. Reddy asked on whether contributions were submitted
regarding H.MMS.3 "Presence" and H.MMS.4"Instant Messaging". At that point
in time, no such contribution were identified, but also not precluded to be
somewhere in the queue as the TSB has not yet completed its job.


The chair closed the Teleconference by thanking all the participants for
joining and helping make progress in the matters. He wished everyone a safe
journey to Geneva.




With kind regards

Martin Euchner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dipl.-Inf.                     Phone: +49 89 722 55790
| Martin Euchner                 Fax  : +49 89 722 47713
| Siemens AG
| ICN M SR 3                     mailto:Martin.Euchner at icn.siemens.de
<mailto:Martin.Euchner at icn.siemens.de>
|                                mailto:martin.euchner at ties.itu.int
<mailto:martin.euchner at ties.itu.int>
| Hofmannstr. 51                 Intranet:
http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/sr/pages/122/122_euchner.htm
<http://intranet.icn.siemens.de/marketing/sr/pages/122/122_euchner.htm>
| D-81359 Muenchen               Internet: http://www.siemens.de/
<http://www.siemens.de/>
| __________________
| Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list