<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(0) The use of url means the "address resolution" is done (by
the local GK) using the DNS, not RAS! This is why the "user only" url of H.323,
is really an exceptional case. It is a question, if we want to keep it within
the url. It lets the local (source) GK know, that the "address
resolution" procedure should performed by other, then DNS, means. The
"protocol" means: the signaling H.323 protocol to contact the (next hop towards
the) destination, after the IP address had been
resolved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(1) Since "user only" is an exception in H.323, I still
believe, that it is dangerous to leave it just as an "user"...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(2) If you would like to say that the destination can be
reached by either "RAS on UDP on port #n" or by "H.225.0/Q.931 on "Annex E"
port #m", you need to advertise two different URL for the same (?) service. It
may be OK, but we all have to agree on the meaning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>BTW, I think that specifying the "message name" instead of the
protocol is a great idea. It really fits the URL concept. On the other hand, I
disagree with the "dev" proposal, from the same reason.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Now you have the job to put all the interleaving and agreed
upon comments in the new url draft text and start the next
round.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is fun to work on the mailing list...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Cheers,</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Orit Levin<BR>RADVision Inc.<BR>575 Corporate Drive Suite 420<BR>Mahwah, NJ
07430<BR>Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230)<BR>Fax: 1 201 529 3516<BR><A
href="http://www.radvision.com">www.radvision.com</A><BR><A
href="mailto:orit@radvision.com">orit@radvision.com</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Paul E. Jones <<A
href="mailto:paulej@packetizer.com">paulej@packetizer.com</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>Orit Levin <<A
href="mailto:orit@radvision.com">orit@radvision.com</A>><BR><B>Cc: </B><A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>
<<A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Friday, September 01, 2000 10:13 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: Re: H.323 URL
Specification (second try)<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Orit,</FONT></DIV>
<OL start=0>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>The reason for suggesting LRQ for RAS is simply that if
you have a URL </FONT><FONT face=Arial>and I tell you that you use RAS to
resolve this, how do you expect to resolve it? The endpoint may pass
it to the GK, but the GK still has to resolve the address somehow. I
don't mind removing the statement about LRQ. After all, we really need
explicit procedure in Annex O to really use this URL properly.</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>I do <EM>not</EM> like having URLs like this:
h323:paulej@. I would much rather follow the conventions of UNIX
programs like "finger", which allows one to do such things as "finger
@hostname.com" and "finger user". It seems much more logical, in my
opinion. I really only want to associate the "@" with the
<EM>hostport</EM>.</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>I don't understand your comments here. Can you
clarify?</FONT></LI></OL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Let me comment on the revisions you made to the
document:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> "The only <EM>url-parameter</EM>
defined.." -> "Currently, the only <EM>url-parameter</EM>
defined"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I would prefer to leave the that sentence there as it
is, or modify is as follows:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> "The <EM>protocol</EM> parameter
shall be interpreted as the..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>thus removing all references to what is "currently"
defined. Below, there is a statement that says that the definition of
additional semicolon-delimited url-parameters, so that will address future
changes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>When no protocol is specified, I said that the
interpreting entity <EM>shall</EM> assume the protocol is <EM>ras</EM>.
I would prefer to leave it as <EM>shall</EM> to avoid any interoperability
issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Also, I agree that the last proposed sentence you
provided about unknown parameters shall be ignored is good-- I will add that
to the document.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:orit@radvision.com" title=orit@radvision.com>Orit Levin</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com"
title=ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com>ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: H.323 URL Specification
(second try)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hi Paul, Bob and others!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am attaching a slightly modified version with changes,
that I think, are MUST.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In addition, I have the following
reservations:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>0. I have a problem with explicitly binding "RAS" with
"LRQ". May be, the default should be "SHALL", "RAS" and "LRQ". But "RAS"
shall NOT mean "LRQ first".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. In case only the "user" is specified, I would prefer to
always have the "@" sign: "user@". Indeed, it is visually deferent from the
simple "user", but</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- It is going to be placed in a
different alias type</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- It will make the parsers' logic easier
when distinguishing between the cases: "h323-user@; parameters" and
"foreign-url-with-its-own-parameters@"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- We may not predict today all possible
complications. I am not sure, we will always be able to keep the user
part in a clean "escaped" format.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Once we go forward with the currently proposed
definition, we allow for each url link FOR THE REST OF THE H323-URL LIFE
only a single combination of (signaling-protocol, transport-protocol,
transport-protocol-port). In order to specify more then one
possibility for the START procedures, separate URLs will need to be
provided.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Any opinions?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Orit Levin<BR>RADVision Inc.<BR>575 Corporate Drive Suite
420<BR>Mahwah, NJ 07430<BR>Tel: 1 201 529 4300 (230)<BR>Fax: 1 201 529
3516<BR><A href="http://www.radvision.com">www.radvision.com</A><BR><A
href="mailto:orit@radvision.com">orit@radvision.com</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Paul E. Jones <<A
href="mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM">paulej@PACKETIZER.COM</A>><BR><B>To:
</B><A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM">ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</A>
<<A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM">ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Thursday, August 31, 2000 2:07 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>H.323 URL
Specification (second try)<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Orit, Bob, and Others,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Please disregard the previous e-mail. It
contained a slightly out-of-date revision of the text. I believe the
URL proper is the same in both documents, but the surrounding text has
changed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Again, I welcome feedback.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Best Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>