Subject: RE: Profiles

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:25:41 -0400

Look at the MSF website for some profile definitions:
http://www.msforum.org/techinfo/MSF-MEDIA-001.00-DRAFT_IA.pdf
http://www.msforum.org/techinfo/MSF-MEDIA-002.00-DRAFT_IA.pdf

I think most MGs will implement a profile.  It will work if 
you don't; you will have to accept the MG, audit it, and then 
break the association if you can't deal with it.
That will be ugly.  In real life however, a network will be
provisioned so that wouldn't happen, or at least it would be a 
management problem if it did.

An MG advertises only one profile.  It could try to find an MGC
to serve it with it's "default" profile, and if that failed, try
another, but that is not a particularly great network design.
I'd implement an MG that way if it could actually support multiple
profiles

There is no way for an MG to present multiple profiles.  
The MGC of course, usually would implement multiple profiles.
You CAN negotiate versions.

Profiles are the way you get interoperability-by-spec.  The
protocol has too many options and choices.  Just saying you support
RFC3015 is not sufficient to guarantee interoperability.  A well
defined profile should be able to do that - an MG meeting
a good profile definition should interwork with any MGC meeting that
definition full stop - no ifs, ands, or buts.

Brian

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Long [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Profiles
> 
> 
> I have some basic questions regarding profiles.
> 
> 1. Is IPPhone the only residential-GW profile currently available?
> 2. Would it ever make sense to _not_ be using a profile? If 
> so, under what
> circumstances would one want to not use a profile?
> 3. It appears that an MG would typically support just one 
> profile. Is that
> correct? For example, there isn't any way to present to the 
> MGC a set of
> profiles that the MG may support and have the MGC pick one, 
> right? I suppose
> if the registration failed due to the profile, the MG could attempt
> subsequent registrations with different profiles. Is this how it is
> envisioned to work? Or would MGs and MGCs typically be 
> deployed by the same
> organization, and it is their responsibility to deploy MGs 
> and MGCs with
> compatible profiles?
> 4. Any other thoughs on the matter?...
> 
> Paul Long
> ipDialog, Inc.
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:30:45 +1000

G'Day,

Profiles are definately something that needs further definition. The
current mechanisms and profiles I believe aren't sufficient. 
Please see my comments below.

Cheers, Christian

> management problem if it did.
[CHG] As mentioned I don't think this is a problem as in real life this
information will be provisioned.

> I'd implement an MG that way if it could actually support multiple
[CHG] I believe that it will be the normal operation that a MG could
support multiple profiles. I don't believe that the way proposed by
Brian would work as for a particular call/session the MG may in fact
need to use elements from two profiles.

> You CAN negotiate versions.
[CHG] Versions won't help when dealing with profiles. I believe that an
update to the profile definition needs to be done for H.248v2. In fact
its something I'm planning a contribution on.

> definition full stop - no ifs, ands, or buts.
[CHG] I agree but I do not believe currently defined profiles go
anywhere close to a full definition. Its the process of this definition
not the fact that you send a profile name in a service change that
acheives this. ie. you have to agree on a transport even before you can
send a service change.