John Brownlie

Bill Pechey bpechey at cix.compulink.co.uk
Fri Jan 11 14:21:00 EST 2002


Dear all,

During the last rapporteur's meeting (Dublin - Ireland), it was expressed
that defining H.22x (designed on the basis of H.225 annex G v2 at the
current state - the backward compatibility with H.225 annex G v1 would be
necessary) as a protocol used on BE--BE and BE--{Backend service entities}
interfaces (other interfaces implying GKs could be considered) and stopping
H.225 annex G would be a better way than defining a new protocol used on
BE--{Backend service entities} interfaces and going on H.225 v2. 

A significant argument is : in the latter case, the BE would support two
application-layer protocols that may evolve separatly in the future. This
would tend to make BE functionalities harder to implement. 
A second one is : if the H.22x "body" includes the H.225 annex G protocol ,
it can be used for information exchange on BE--BE interface even in the
H.323 mobility management context. 

To my understanding, H.22X would not contain any functional architecture
description. This would be specifically described in every H.MMS.x draft,
depending on the application context (H.323 specific, etc.). To give an
example, the definition of generic entities would be contained in H.MMS.0.
Specific entities such as GKs would be described in H.MMS.1.
Then, mobility management implies a limited set of information exchanges
that are independants from the application (although the type of exchange
data depends on the application). These are related to the same actions at
least : user registration/deregistration, location update, authentication,
information update (e.g. user service profile transfer, update), location
information request. So I think it is possible to define a "simple" generic
protocol.

Best regards,

François Bougant
France Telecom

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy at att.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 9 janvier 2002 16:16
À : BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS; ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM
Cc : Meyer, Greg W
Objet : RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th,
2001


Hi, Mr. Francois and All:

In addition, we also had some email correspondences among the conference
participants and few interested folks including Mr. Jones and Mr. Reddy. It
has been opined that H.22x is NOT needed because the extensions of the
existing application-specific protocol (e.g., H.225.0 Annex G) for mobility
will serve the purpose.

Copies of the emails are enclosed below.

Best regards,

Radhika R. Roy
rrroy at att.com

PS: I would highly appreciate if Mr. Greg Meyer would send the email to the
SG16 reflector as you know that I can receive the mail from the reflector,
but cannot send it because of problems in filtering.



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list