<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>Hi
Paul </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>I
think that NULL callIdentifier is better solution.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>I
believe that there are and probably there will be additional cases
that require sending of Q.931 message related to the whole
multiplex.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>One
possible example is STATUS messages in Annex R.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>So,
probably in the specific case of the FACILITY message the security is not
significantly compromised, but I think we definitely cannot say the same
generally about all the cases when the Q.931 message relates to
the multiplex. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587272805-11122000>So I
believe that definition of specific callIdentifier for such cases is
required.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=587272805-11122000>Sasha</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Paul E. Jones
[mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 10, 2000 7:57
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Sasha Ruditsky<BR><B>Cc:</B>
ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Corrections to H.225.0v4
and H.323v4<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sasha,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The problem with that is that the Facility message
contains a call Identifier. The only place this is currently used is in
setting the <STRONG>multipleCalls</STRONG> flag. I don't think that's an
issue, even with security compromised. We have to have something that
makes the text in H.323v4 work-- right now there's no way to send a Facility
message to change the <STRONG>multipleCalls </STRONG>flag.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As an alternative, we could specify that the
CallIdentifier will contain 16 zeros when sending non-call-related messages,
as opposed to using the <STRONG>empty</STRONG> choice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>What's the group's preference?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sasha@tlv.radvision.com href="mailto:sasha@tlv.radvision.com">Sasha
Ruditsky</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paulej@PACKETIZER.COM
href="mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM">Paul E. Jones</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 10, 2000 8:23
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Corrections to H.225.0v4
and H.323v4</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=476355312-10122000>Hi
Paul</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000>Everything looks OK with me except the very 1st
change.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000>Specifically the
empty <B>h323-message-body</B> element for non call related Q.931
messages.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000>The empty <STRONG>h323-message-body</STRONG>
does not allow to add tokens to the FACILITY message so it cannot be
authenticated and its integrity cannot be checked.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000>My proposal is to change wording here to allow
non empty <STRONG>h323-message-body</STRONG> in the case security is
required</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000>Sasha </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=476355312-10122000></SPAN><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=476355312-10122000><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=476355312-10122000> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Paul E. Jones
[mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 09, 2000
12:06 AM<BR><B>To:</B> ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Corrections to H.225.0v4 and H.323v4<BR><B>Importance:</B>
High<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>H.323 Experts,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I have attached a document that contains the
complete list of corrections for H.225.0v4 and H.323v4, with differences
against the decided text, that we have discussed on the mailing list this
past week.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I would like all interested parties to review these
changes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I am open to changing the wording, but I would like
to get consensus on making these changes. I have asked the TSB to
see if we can make these corrections prior to the publication of the
documents. If so, I want to have the support of everyone to make
these corrections. I don't believe that any of these issues should
be contentious, but without these corrections, I'm afraid that many more
questions and interoperability problems will arise.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If it turns out that we cannot update the approved
text before publication, I plan to submit this document (or a modified
version with comments I receive from you) to the next meeting in
March. Personally, I'd rather correct the Recommendation before
publication, rather than adding this to the Implementers
Guide.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>