Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th, 200 1
BOUGANT François FTRD/DAC/ISS
francois.bougant at RD.FRANCETELECOM.COM
Thu Jan 24 08:14:31 EST 2002
I fully agree with the arguments previously expressed by Ernst Orvath for
H.22x in the specific context (H.22X being an enhanced version of H.225
annex G v2 draft). So I vote for H.22x.
If such this MM protocol becomes a standard as an annex of H.225, It would
not be possible to make it evolve in order to meet the requirements of
multimedia services THAT WOULD NOT BE call related. This doesn't fit our
decision to design a generic MM protocol. This justifies the "documentation"
advantage as mentionned by Ernst.
Anyway, considering the short time remaining until the plenary meeting, I
would suggest to discuss also about the protocol design itself.
De : Meyer, Greg W [mailto:greg.w.meyer at INTEL.COM]
Envoyé : mercredi 23 janvier 2002 19:21
À : ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM
Objet : Re: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th,
Forwarded per Mr. Roy's request...
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO [mailto:rrroy at att.com]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:12 AM
To: Horvath Ernst; ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM
Cc: Meyer, Greg W
Subject: RE: Report of Q.5 (mobility) phone conference, December 18th,
( Mr. Meyer: I would appreciate if you would kindly forward my message to
the SG16 reflector.)
Hi, Mr. Ernst:
I understand your points. Now the question is: Do we want to kill or
deprecate H.225.0 Annex G in the longer term through standardization of
Let us debate the pros and cons of H.22x from technical point of view (I
will withdraw my objections to H.22x if sufficient technical arguments are
provided). This is the fundamental debate for all of us in the SG16.
So far, I have voted for enhancement of H.225.0 Annex G for mobility
(because H.22x differs from H.225.0 Annex G by only 2/3 messages and does
not say why it has to be fundamentally different from H.225.0 Annex G.)
Radhika R. Roy
rrroy at att.com
More information about the sg16-avd