Rec. H.501 and "GEF" parameter repository

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Thu May 16 06:31:46 EDT 2002

Rec. H.501 and "GEF" parameter repositorySimao,

It really depends on how much change we see.  As long as features are added to H.460.x, there is likely no need to update the document.  However, if we see non-H.460.x document appearing often with such values (which I do not expect), we would have to approve this more frequently.  My guess is that the volume will be pretty low.

Normative/informative.. I always love these questions.  The value will be defined in normative text within the respective recommendation.  This other document would just be a collection of those values that are centrally located.  Arguably, it would be normative.  On the other hand, if we made it informative then there would be no debate of which is correct in the case of conflicting values.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Campos, Simao 
  To: 'Paul E. Jones' ; ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM 
  Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:24 AM
  Subject: RE: Rec. H.501 and "GEF" parameter repository


  Two questions for my clarification:
  - How frequently would such contents be updated?
  - Is the intent for such material to be normative or informative?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
    Sent: jeudi, 16. mai 2002 05:52
    To: ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM
    Subject: Re: Rec. H.501 and "GEF" parameter repository


    I do agree that we need a single place to list these.  In the past, the thinking was to list such things in the Implementers Guide, but I'm more inclined to argue that H.460.1, perhaps Annex A (non-existent) would be the right place.


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Horvath Ernst 
      To: ITU-SG16 at echo.jf.INTEL.COM 
      Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:08 AM
      Subject: Rec. H.501 and "GEF" parameter repository

      Dear experts, 

      my H.501 final draft contained  a placeholder "annex B" for collecting "generic data" (i.e. standardized GEF identifier values). Upon advice by TSB, this annex will be removed in the published version 1 of H.501 since it contained no useful text. 

      The initial idea was to include here material from H.225.0 annex G as soon as version 2 of annex G is finished. But now I have some doubts whether H.501 is the right place for such a data register. A repository of generic data should at least include also values assigned in GEF standards (H.460.x). Wouldn't the H.460 series be a better place for this?

      At the top level we have assigned so far: 
      - feature ID "0" for H.225.0 Annex G profiles 
      - feature IDs "n" for H.460.n 
      (is this the complete list?) 

      Each top-level feature ID opens a local name space for EnumeratedParameter-IDs specified for that specific feature. Since these are defined locally there is no danger of collisions.

      At least the top-level IDs should be maintained at a central place to avoid collisions, especially if such IDs can be assigned outside H.460.n standards as well (is this generally the case, or is H.225.0 annex G the only exception?). Of course such a repository could also list the locally assigned EnumeratedParameter-IDs for each registered feature, to provide a quick reference.

      So the question is, do people see the need for a generic-data register, and if yes, in which form? H.460.x? Or in an IG? H.501 does not seem to be the proper place.

      Ernst Horvath 
      Siemens AG 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list