COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW · October 2000 Vol. 11.9 Copyright © CSR 2000 1 COMMUNICATIONS...

October 2000 Vol. 11.9 Copyright © CSR 2000 1

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDSREVIEW

Volume 11, Number 9 October, 2000

In This Issue

The following reports of recent standards meetings represent the view of the reporterand are not official, authorized minutes of the meetings.

TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment Engineering Committee, August 7 – 9, 2000, Palo Alto, CA.................. 3TR-29 Meeting Roster, August 7 – 9, 2000, Palo Alto, CA................................................................ 4

TR-41, Telecommunications Equipment Requirements, August 14 – 18, 2000, Vancouver, BC.......................... 5TR-41.1, Multiline Terminal Systems.......................................................................................... 5TR-41.1.2, Voice Quality over IP................................................................................................ 7TR-41.2, Conformity Assessment............................................................................................... 8TR-41.3, Analog and Digital Wireline Terminals............................................................................ 11TR-41.3.5, Revision of TIA-470-B............................................................................................. 11TR-41.4, VoIP Gateways and Infrastructures................................................................................... 13TR-41.5, Multimedia-Building Distribution Systems....................................................................... 14TR-41.7, Environmental and Safety Considerations......................................................................... 14TR-41.7.1 Harmonization of International Safety Standards............................................................... 16TR-41.9, FCC Technical Regulatory COnsiderations........................................................................ 18TR-41.10, Private ISDN Issues................................................................................................... 22TR-41.11, FCC Regulatory Administrative Considerations................................................................ 23TR-41 Partial Meeting Roster, August 14 – 18, 2000, Vancouver, BC................................................... 28

DSL Forum Technical Committee Meeting, August 28 - September 1, 2000, Dublin, Ireland............................. 30Architecture and Transport Working Group.................................................................................... 30Transport Sub-Working Group................................................................................................... 32VoDSL (Voice over DSL) Working Group...................................................................................... 34Operations & Network Management Working Group........................................................................ 37Testing & Interoperability Working Group.................................................................................... 38Emerging DSLs Study Group...................................................................................................... 44Marketing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45G8 Interoperability Group......................................................................................................... 46DSL Forum Meeting Roster, August 28 - September 1, 2000, Dublin, Ireland.......................................... 48

Study Group 15 WP2 Rapporteur’s Meetings, September 14 – 20, 2000, Munich, Germany.............................. 57Q6/15, Circuit Multiplication Equipment...................................................................................... 57Q7/15, Network Echo Control and Interaction of Echo Controllers and Network Equipment........................ 59Q21/15, Functionality and Interface Specifications for GSTN Transport Network Equipment for InterconnectingGSTN and IP Networks (TIGIN)................................................................................................... 61WP2/15 Rapporteurs Partial Meeting Roster, September 14 – 20, 2000, Munich, Germany........................ 63

ETSI TIPHON Meeting #20, September 18 – 22, 2000, Vienna, Austria....................................................... 64Working Group 1, Requirements................................................................................................. 68Working Group 2, Architecture................................................................................................... 70Working Group 3, Call Control.................................................................................................. 73Working Group 4, Naming, Addressing........................................................................................ 75Working Group 5, Quality of Services (QoS).................................................................................. 78Working Group 6, Verification................................................................................................... 79Working Group 7, Wireless....................................................................................................... 81Working Group 8, Security........................................................................................................ 83TIPHON #20 Meeting Roster, September 18 – 22, 2000, Vienna, Austria.............................................. 84

Table of Contents Continued on Next Page

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW

2 Vol. 11.9 Copyright © CSR 2000 October 2000

ETSI TM6 #19, Access Transmission Systems on Metallic Cables, September 18 – 22, 2000, Vienna, Austria...... 87SDSL.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88VDSL.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91ADSL.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93ANAI.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Spectrum Management............................................................................................................. 96DSL Testing and Interoperability Issues........................................................................................ 96TM6 Meeting Roster, September 18 – 22, 2000, Vienna, Austria........................................................ 97

Acronym Definitions....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Year 2000 Standards Committee Meeting Schedules as of October 26, 2000................................................. 104

Year 2001 Standards Committee Meeting Schedules............................................................................... 104

Communications Standards Reviewregularly covers the following committee meetings:

TIA TR-29 Facsimile Systems & EquipmentTR-30 Data Transmission Systems & EquipmentTR-41 User Premises Telephone Equipment

RequirementsTR-42 User Premises Telecommunications

Infrastructure

ITU-T SG8 Telematic TerminalsSG15 WP1 Network AccessSG15 WP2 Network Signal ProcessingSG16 Multimedia

ETSI AT Access and TerminalsTIPHON Voice over InternetTM6 Transmission & Multiplexing

DSL Forum xDSL, Access Technologies

THE CSR LIBRARY

Subscribers may order copies of documents shown in boldface type from Communications StandardsReview, where not controlled. $50.00 for the first document in any order, $40.00 for the second, and$25.00 for each additional document in any order. Volume discounts available. Please contact CSR.

Documents listed with © are controlled documents. These documents are not for sale, but we can provideyou with the author’s contact information. ETSI meeting documents are also not for sale, but we canprovide you with the author’s contact information.

We have a large library of standards work in process and can help you locate other information you mayneed.

CSR recommends that you obtain published standards from Global Engineering Documents.Tel: 800 854-7179, +1 303 792-2181, Fax : +1 303 397-7935, http://global.ihs.com

11909



REPORT OF TR-29 FACSIMILE SYSTEMS & EQUIPMENT ENGINEERINGCOMMITTEE, AUGUST 7 – 9, 2000, PALO ALTO, CA

H. Silbiger (Lucent) is the TR-29 chair. TR-29/00-08-01 are the minutes of the previous meeting. TR-29.4 didnot meet.

TR-29 has previously been notified about the following IPR items:

• Fujitsu has some intellectual property on sending voice files in T.30.• Mixed Raster Content - Xerox may have IPR related to this work and has submitted an IPR statement. (See

TR/96-11-55). Xerox also submitted a new patent statement on Mixed Raster Content at the March-April1999 SG8 meeting, but it was later withdrawn.

• JBIG2 - Xerox may have IPR related to this work with respect to the rendering of JBIG-2 images, and there alsomay also be additional patent claims related to JBIG-2.

• Internet Fax – D. Duehren (Brooktrout) is aware of Intellectual Property associated with dial forwarding. D.MacTaggart (Cyberfax) is aware of potential IPR that may apply for real time fax over the Internet. There arepatents from Biscom, Matsushita, and Open Port on some aspects of Internet fax (seehttp://www.patents.ibm.com for details on US patents). J. Dahmen (Lanier) is aware of a patent owned byInfotrieve on a device to convert between fax and email formats. This may have an impact on some Internet faxrelated gateway products.

• Fax Security - There is IPR on the security page from France Telecom and on public key management fromRSA.

There was no activity on the following projects:

• PN-3130, Class X• PN-3625, Class 2.1

The final text for PN-3626 (Class 1.0), retrofitting ITU-T T.31 for incorporation in an updated TIA-578-B, had beensent to TIA six months ago but it has not yet been published.

It was agreed to do no further work on the proposed fax management standard because of lack of interest.

TR-29/00-08-04 (same as PCM’00-058R3) is draft Recommendation V.92, as submitted to the Q23/16meeting in Edinburgh, June 30, 2000.

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1L. McIntyre (Xerox) reported on JBIG2 and JPEG 2000 activity.

ITU-T SG8H. Silbiger (Lucent) reported on Questions 4 activity at the June 2000 meeting of Q4/8. He noted that thecontribution from TR-29 on INDICATOR in T.38 was agreed. The versioning confusion was cleared up.Agreements are reflected in a revised Implementer’s Guide, available on the ITU website.

IETFV. Cancio (Xerox) reported that the revised Fax WG charter has been agreed, as has the T.37 Implementer’s Guide.

PN-3675, EXTENDED NEGOTIATIONS

It was agreed to send out the draft of an interim TIA standard on extended negotiations within Group 3 facsimile forcommittee ballot as an Interim Standard (IS). The prospects for an ITU version are small.

PN-3799, I NTERNET FAX

Two days were spent on V.34 access to T.38 gateways. TR-29/00-08-05 is the ad hoc report on V.34/T.38 fromthis meeting. The Ad Hoc group reviewed the draft amendment to Recommendation T.38 to support the use of V.34Modulation. The Ad Hoc group suggested some modifications to GMD-40 from the Gaithersburg, MD meetingJune 15, 2000 in section 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.7. The highlights of the changes:

• Added consistency in sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 regarding indicators, field types and data types• Cleaned up text in section 2.7 about V.8 negotiation• Cleaned up text in section 2.7 about V.34 data rate management• Removed mention of INFO0c and INFO0a signals• Removed V34-cc-end message



• Format of figures is consistent• Some editorial changes throughout the document

TR-29/00-08-10 will be Draft amendment to Recommendation T.38 to support the use of V.34 Modulation. It willbe formatted as an ITU contribution for submission to ITAC-D as a proposed US contribution, after review byemail. A copy will also be sent to TR-30.

TR-29/00-08-03 from Q7/16 to Q1/8 on inconsistencies between T.32 and V.25x series was discussed. Theinconsistency is that T.32 represents the command parameters in hexadecimal and V.25x represents them in decimal.It was agreed that T.32 should not be changed. TR-29/00-08-08 is a liaison to TR-30.1 which notes that changingT.32 to use the decimal representation in the parameters would entail publishing a new version of T.32 (from Class2.1 to Class 2.2) and would require an additional burden on the developers or cause incompatibility problems in themarket. Due to the deployment in the market of de facto “Class 2,” TIA/EIA-592 (Class 2.0) and TIA/EIA-592-A/T.32 (Class 2.1), which all use the hexadecimal representation, an additional version would only add to theconfusion and amount of code required to ensure backward compatibility.

PN-3825, MULTIMEDIA FAX PROTOCOL (T.30)

Amendments to Rec. T.30 were drafted to add V.92 modulation to Group 3. The draft contribution was based on anearlier contribution to SG8 proposing the addition of V.90 and V.91 which was not agreed by SG8. TR-29/00-08-06r1, Use of draft Rec. V.92 modulation systems in Group 3 facsimile, is now sufficiently firm forprototyping. It proposes that T.30 be extended to support the modulation systems in Rec. V.92. This documentwill be sent to TR-30 (cover letter is TR-29/00-08-07), as a proposed contribution to ITU SG8 (or its successor),with the request to determine if it accurately reflects V.92 usage. Results from TR-30 will be circulated to TR-29.Any changes are expected to be minor, after which the draft will be sent to ITAC-D as a proposed US contribution.

PN-3826, B INARY FILE TRANSFER

The updated draft of SP-3826, which is the US version of the Binary File Transfer specification, is to be sent out forcommittee ballot.

TR-29’S FUTURE

The future of TR-29 was discussed. Interest and need for the work of TR-29 have diminished. Also, market interesthas decreased for Secure Fax (TR-29.4 work). It was agreed by resolution that a request would be made to TIA toeffect a merger of TR-29 with TR-30. The rationale was that because of the likelihood of SG8’s merger into SG16,their US TAGs (Technical Advisory Groups) should also reside in the same organization. TR-29/00-08-09,Resolution on TR-29 merger with TR-30, will be sent to D. Bart (TIA) with a copy to TR-30. (Editor’s note: TIAand TR-30 have agreed to accept a merger of TR-29 into TR-30. TR-29’s final meeting will be Nov. 1-3, 2000, atTIA headquarters in Arlington, VA.)

TR-29 MEETING ROSTER, AUGUST 7 – 9, 2000, PALO ALTO, CA

Herman Silbiger, Lucent Technologies TR-29 Chair

ACTION Consulting Ken Krechmer [email protected]. Standards Review Elaine Baskin [email protected]. Standards Review Denise Lai [email protected] Mahdi Saidan [email protected] Ian McCallum [email protected] Worldwide Jim Dahmen [email protected] Technologies Herman Silbiger [email protected] Networks Mehul MehtaXerox Vivian Cancio [email protected] Lloyd McIntyre



REPORT OF TR-41, TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENTREQUIREMENTS, AUGUST 14 – 18, 2000, VANCOUVER, BC

TR-41.1, MULTILINE TERMINAL SYSTEMS

T. Tung (Siemens) is the TR-41.1 Chair. TR-41.1/00-08-001 is the report of the May meeting.

PN-4422, QSIG I NTEROPERABILITY

TR-41.1/00-08-010 (P. Melton, Editor) provides comments on the draft PN-4422, the North American test planfor multi-vendor QSIG interoperability testing, sent to TR-41.1 members on June 27, 2000. The PN-4422 editorialteam [P. Melton (eOn Communications), A. Fartmann, G. Mayer, T. Stach, and T. Tung (Siemens)] discussed thesecomments; results of the discussion were incorporated into the final version (TR-41.1/00-08-002). A minorchange of wording was made in the Introduction to point out that ECMA is aligned with ISO. In section 1.2(Background for compatibility tests), the first sentence will be modified, and the second and third sentences, whichprovide background on why ETSI, ECMA and ISO QSIG standards are not aligned, will be deleted. No otherchanges were requested; the final version PN-4422 was approved to be sent out for committee letter ballot as TSB-123. (Editor’s note: the ballot closed September 29, 2000.)

PN-4505, TSB-32,-A N ORTH AMERICA CONNECTION SCENARIOS ANALYSIS

PN-4505 is still pending, due to lack of resources; the Chair will look for an editor to complete the document.

PN-3673, UPDATE/REVISE TIA-464-C

TR-41.1/00-08-007 (T. Tung, Siemens, Editor) is the third draft of TIA-464-C, Requirements for PBXswitching equipment. T. Tung pointed out that the names of only the individuals and companies who contributed tothe TIA-464-C update will be listed in the revised standard. Numerous changes have been made including changes tothe scope, and external and internal references. The major changes and additions made in the third draft of TIA-464-Cappear in red, minor wording changes or updates are highlighted in blue. T. Tung will continue the update of thedraft TIA-464-C.

Balanced Ringing

The Chair presented the TR-41.1 position to T1E1.1 on August 14, 2000 (see CSR Vol. 11.7). There was noconsensus in T1E1 to support the addition of PBX OPS balanced ringing to Part 68 of the FCC rules as the PBXOPS balanced ringing is not compatible with the existing network Digital Loop Carrier systems. There wasconsensus in T1E1 that PBX OPS balanced ringing will not harm the network. T1E1.1 agreed to consider this topicin future meetings and will advise TR-41.1 of any further conclusions.

Sect ion 6 .6 - Delay Requirements

J. Combs (Cisco) will review the TIA-464-C delay requirements; there were no contributions and no discussion ondelay in this meeting.

NEW CONTRIBUTIONS FOR TIA-464-C U PDATES

TR-41.1/00-08-003 (R. Hatherill, Mitel) discusses necessary changes to the Digital/Analog access line(DIG/AAL) loss plan of TIA-464 Section 6, Transmission recommendations. The original assumptions made whenderiving the analog trunk loudness ratings were incorrect; digital sets connected over analog trunks can have anoverall loudness rating (OLR) up to 6 dB higher (quieter) in some circumstances. Previously it was pointed out thatthe ICS port in TIA/EIA-464-B was designed with the interLATA and intraLATA losses in mind. These losses areinserted for stability and echo control, and can be 0, 3, or 6 dB depending on whether the connection is on the sameend office, whether the connection involves different exchange carriers, and on the distance between end offices. Thisis a somewhat simplified summary of a complex situation, and further background on this subject can be found inTIA/EIA/TSB-32-A 1998, ANSI T1-508 1998 and LSSGR Section 7.

This contribution recommends new DIG/AAL losses to compensate for the increased loss:Current New

(Version 8) (Version 9)AAL(A) SLR 14 dB 17 dBAAL(A) RLR 0 dB 3 dBDIG to AAL(A) Loss 3 dB 0 dB



AAL(D) SLR 11 dB 14 dBAAL(D) RLR -3 dB 0 dBDIG to AAL(D) Loss 6 dB 3 dB

These were accepted without comments. R. Hatherill will update the loss plan section to incorporate the approvedchanges.

TR-41.1/00-08-011 (P. Melton, eOn Communications) proposes modifications to section 5.4, Network Interface-Digital (ISDN), and relevant references. Changes included updating and correcting references and incorporating areference to the TIA QSIG interoperability test plan being developed in TR-41.1. This was accepted withoutcomment. T. Tung will incorporate the proposed changes in the next draft of TIA-464-C.

TR-41.1/00-08-012 (T. Tung, Siemens) discusses DTMF signal power level. TIA-464-B, Section 6.1.4.1, onlycovers DTMF power levels during network address signaling; there are no signal power requirements when DTMF isused for manual entry end-to-end signaling. This contribution recommends adding the FCC Part 68.308(b)(2)(i)(A)and (B) DTMF signal power limitation requirements to section 7.1.4.1 of the new TIA-464-C standard. This wasaccepted without comment. T. Tung will incorporate the proposed changes in the next draft of TIA-464-C.

TR-41.1/00-08-013 (T. Tung, Siemens) addresses mistakes in FCC Part 68 Table 68.308(b) for allowable netamplification between ports. Note (B) in the table does not apply to OPS; the RTE(B) PSTN/OPS in the tableshould be RTE(B) PSTN/ONS. This was accepted without comment. T. Tung will incorporate the proposedchanges in the next draft of TIA-464-C.

TR-41.1/00-08-014 (T. Tung, Siemens) discusses addition of a new section (5.4.4) to include ADSLrequirements in TIA-464-C. Concerns were expressed about the different DSL implementations, e.g., RADSL,ATM, etc., and the fact that it may not be possible to point to all of them. J. Needham (Mitel) pointed out thatTIA-464-C is primarily a standard for circuit switched network connections; it should not refer to other technologies.It was agreed to not include ADSL standards in TIA-464-C.

TR-41.1/00-08-015 (T. Tung, Siemens) proposes to add two new sections (6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4) to TIA-464-C.The proposed new section 6.1.1.3 concerns the applicability of TIA-464-C transmission requirements to IPtelephony products. The proposed new section 6.1.1.4 is intended to reference TSB-81 (Comparison of PBXTransmission Requirements in Standards ANSI/TIA/EIA-464-B and ETSI ETS 300 439) in the standard. It wasagreed that 6.1.13 should be further simplified to indicate that the TIA-464-C transmission requirements are notapplicable to IP telephony products. J. Pomy (Tenovis GmbH) noted that the ETSI ETS 300 439 standard quoted insection 6.1.1.4 will be replaced by ES 201 168. T. Tung will incorporate the proposed changes in the next draft ofTIA-464-C.

TR-41.1/00-08-017 (R. Hatherill, Mitel) discusses changes required in the loss plan to ensure unconditionalnetwork stability with unterminated analog loops. It analyzes the loop stability of the TIA-464-C loss planconnections, and identifies one case that was not unconditionally stable. It proposes to separate digital sets from thedigital trunks for loss planning purposes so as to provide loop stability for digital trunks without compromising thedigital set OLRs. This proposal was accepted. R. Hatherill will update the loss plan section to incorporate the newdigital set designation and the associated losses.

TR-41.1/00-08-020 , Half-Channel Loss Plan for IP Telephony (R. Hatherill, Mitel), is a copy of TR-41.4/00-08-053 ; it was provided to TR-41.1 for information. The basic concept in the half-channel loss plan isto normalize all transmit levels on an IP telephony network to the same equivalent SLR (ESLR), digital sets providethe reference SLR of 8 dB by definition. This is not an original concept, as it is the basis of the European dBrreference system, but the recent move to standardize the North American digital set LRs to the ITU-T recommendedlevels now makes this practical for IP telephony networks. R. Hatherill sought comments from the TR-41.1 expertson the viability of the concept. R. Frank (Siemens) raised the question of whether DTMF signals can overloadcodecs with 0 dB gain for on-premise stations. R. Hatherill will investigate the DTMF/codec overload issue.

E9-1-1

TR-41.1/00-08- 016© (E. Sorenson, SCC Communications) presents the mandatory data elements required forsupport of E9-1-1 service from an MLTS, as defined by National Emergency Number Association, NENA-002-101,May 1999. It provides a component of the updating/modification of ANSI/TIA/EIA-689, PBX and KTS support ofenhanced 9-1-1 emergency service calling. The full document is NENA-02-010 May 1999 Recommended Formatsand Protocols for Data Exchange, available at http://www.nena9-1-1.org. Concerns were expressed about puttingNENA information into TIA-689 verbatim without due diligence from TR-41.1; the question was raised: Should



TIA-689 just reference the NENA document? A. Caggiano (Lucent) had discussed this issue with NENA, with theobjective of encouraging NENA to stabilize the document and not continue making changes; this would also givethe NENA recommendations more weight. The discussion concluded with proposal of the following four options:

• Provide a pointer in TIA-689 to the NENA document• Include NENA information in TIA-689• Include NENA information as an informative annex in TIA-689• Make NENA information a new standard

It was agreed to delay the decision to give the experts more time to examine the issues. This will be furtherdiscussed and concluded at the November meeting.

TR-41.1/00-08-018 (A. Caggiano, Lucent) is the proposed TIA-689 Table of Contents. It proposes thefollowing:

• Add an ISDN trunk option - using the new signaling protocols specified in T1.607 (Digital Subscriber SignalingSystem No. 1 - Layer 3 Signaling Specification for Circuit Switched Bearer Service) and T1.628 (Routing,Bridging and Transfer of Emergency Service Calls)

• Add more detailed database requirements - per TR-41.1/00-08-017• Include “alternative” methods of support (e.g., private 911 answering point, in-band location signaling, use of

locals alarms) in an Informative Annex

This proposal was accepted.

TR-41.1/00-08-019 (A. Caggiano, Lucent) proposes to exclude IP telephony from TIA/EIA-689 until there is astandard method for IP telephony support for E911, and to replace the term “CESID” (Caller Emergency StationIdentification), which has generated some controversy, with a more generic term. It also proposes to incorporateother technical requirements through reference rather than reproduction. This proposal was accepted; it will beincluded in the next TIA-689 update. J. Combs (Cisco) volunteered to lead the E911 working group [R.Chrostowski (Iwatsu America), E. Sorensen (SCC Communication), R. Frank (Siemens), A. Caggiano (Lucent), J.McMillen (Avaya Communications), D. Lockard (Telcon Associates of St. Louis)] to review and update TIA-689.

ETSI/STQ/TIPHON L IAISON

J. Pomy (Tenovis GmbH) gave an overview of some of the work being carried out by ETSI STQ and TIPHON,including an overview of ETSI TR 101 329 and the ETSI ES 201 168 v1.2.1 PBX standard. He gave the Chair anumber of draft ETSI/STQ/TIPHON documents to distribute to TR-41.1 members for information and reference. Healso included information relating to the September, 2000 STQ/TIPHON test event and a draft of EG 201 474,Future approaches to speech transmission quality across multiple interconnected networks. It may not be possible inthe future to guarantee specific voice transmission quality levels to users by relying just on the traditional networkplanning guides and codes of practice. This tutorial document explores the possibility of introducing a dynamicmechanism, based on enhancements to the existing network signalling systems, for assuring specific levels of voicetransmission quality are achieved on individual calls.

ETSI STQ has opened two projects on acoustic safety of terminal equipment. One develops an ETSI Guide based onthe work in STF 149; the second is on test methods.

The Chair also distributed the following contributions for information and reference:

• TR-41.1/00-08-004 is a notification of the withdrawal of obsolete standard TIA/EIA-594, Private digitalnetwork synchronization.

• TR-41.1/00-08-005 is a TIA work in progress reference proposal.• TR-41.1/00-08-006 is the draft Australian standard, ACIF S043.2 DSL .• TR-41.1/00-08-008 is a Public Notice from the FCC announcing the designation of 13 TCBs in the US. It

lists these TCBs and the types of equipment they have been accredited and designated to approve.• TR-41.1/00-08-009 is a presentation from IMTC on IP-related standardization activities in ECMA.

TR-41.1.2, VOICE QUALITY OVER IP

TR-41.1.2 is a working group under TR-41.1; the Chair is R. Britt (Nortel). The group is currently working onPN-4689, Voice quality recommendations for IP Telephony (Editor R. Britt), which will be published as TSB-116.TR-41.1.2/00-08-01 is the meeting agenda. TR-41.1.2/00-08-02 is the report of the May meeting.



J. Pomy (Tenovis GmbH) summarized the related activities in TIPHON WGs 5 and 6. He noted that a QoS testingevent will be held in October.

PN-4689, VOICE QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IP TELEPHONY

TR-41.1.2/00-08-03 is draft 5 of PN-4689. The new material is located in Section 6, IP Telephony VoiceQuality Analysis, and Section 6.2.1, Delay. Progress was made with harmonizing the category names andthresholds (as shown in Figures 20 and 21) with TIPHON WG5. Some new material on the minimum packetizationdelay may lead to an addendum for G.114; this is still under investigation. The objective is to complete thisdocument at the next meeting (November, 2000).

TR-41.2, CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT

P. Adornato (Nortel) is the TR-41.2 Chair. TR-41.2/00-08-010 is the report of the May meeting.

TR-41.2/00-08-008 is an EICTA Green paper on a global product approval system for the future.

TR-41.2/00-08-009 is a copy of an FCC news release: FCC proposes streamlining technical rules for customertelephone equipment.

EUROPEAN UNION - CANADA MRA CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

Canada and the EC have agreed to amend the Canada/EC MRA to incorporate the European R&TTE Directive, and toextend the confidence-building period from June 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001, for all the sectors. IC will not berecognizing any EU labs for radio and EMC requirements under the MRA, only terminal attachment. This decisionwas acceptable to the EU Commission. Canada and Switzerland have reached a similar agreement, except that theconfidence-building period for EMC Annex will remain intact (i.e., July 1, 2000). IC is currently working on thedesignation procedure for competent bodies for Swiss EMC requirements, and will call for Canadian organizations tocome forward for designation. The Canada-EEA/EFTA MRA was signed July 4, 2000.

EUROPEAN UNION - US MRA CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

The telecommunications annex of the EU/US MRA is scheduled for implementation on December 3, 2000; itappears that this deadline will be met. The Joint Sectoral Committee (JSC) that oversees the implementation of thetelecommunications annex met May 16-17 to discuss the status of implementation activities as the two-yeartransition period comes to a close.

To facilitate MRA implementation, both sides have made significant regulatory changes with strong support fromindustry. In the US, the FCC has largely privatized the telecommunications equipment certification process with theintroduction of the TCB program. Accredited conformity assessment bodies will be able to certify equipment to bothUS and European specifications. In addition, the FCC is working closely with the EC and the private sector on bothsides of the Atlantic to share information and educate each side about the requirements of the other. The FCC is inthe process of streamlining Part 68, the set of regulations governing attachment of terminal equipment to thetelecommunications network.

OSHA’s insistence on performing both the designation and recognition of EU NRTLs undermines the spirit of theMRA and is a continuing source of irritation to the EU Commission despite the fact that EC industry has informedthe EU Commission that OSHA’s position is acceptable. OSHA has offered a compromise proposal: OSHAinspectors will perform the initial inspection of EU NRTL CABs, and allow a yet-to-be-determined EU accreditingbody to perform subsequent follow-up evaluations. The Department of Commerce continues to negotiate with theEU Commission to finalize implementation for the electrical safety aspects of the MRA.

The US has indicated that, while continued education on the R&TTE Directive and its implications for conformityassessment and the MRA is needed, they are willing to incorporate the Directive into the previously agreed MRAtext. Therefore, the Directive should not be an impediment to MRA implementation and the process will continueto move forward. Indeed, a primary intent of the parties was for the MRA to accommodate the normal course ofregulatory evolution.

Three sections of the US/EU MRA Guide were distributed:TR-41.2/00-08-011 : draft Chapter II, Telecommunications.TR-41.2/00-08-012 : draft Chapter III, EMCTR-41.2/00-08-013 : draft Chapter IV, Electrical Safety



These chapters are intended to assist European manufacturers, conformity assessment bodies and designatingauthorities understand and utilize the Sectoral Annex on Telecommunications Equipment of the US/EU MutualRecognition Agreement. These chapters supplement and build upon the Chapter Introduction to the US/EU MRA,which provides a foundation on MRA principles and general characteristics. They address the questions of how todetermine products covered by the MRA within the scope of the sectoral annex; what US requirements have to bemet and to what extent compliance with the applicable European Directive can satisfy the US requirements.

R&TTE DIRECTIVE

In Europe, the EC introduced the R&TTE Directive to move toward common European specifications for equipmentmanufacturers and to eliminate national regulations. The requirements of the Directive are legal, not technical; itdoes not harmonize spectrum allocation. A small group within TR-41.2 is monitoring activity relative to theimplementation of the R&TTE Directive.

S. Roleson (Hewlett-Packard) reported that the TR-41.2 ad hoc group tasked with monitoring R&TTE issues isunaware of any significant issues regarding special interconnect requirements in Europe. He suggested that membersshould nonetheless familiarize themselves with the TR-41.9 Web Report (TR-41.9/00-08-046 ; see below, reportof TR-41.9), which lists web sites containing network interface information.

E. Wright (Intertek Testing Services) reported that France required that the I-V Characteristics of TBR-21 be retainedunder the R&TTE Directive as a harm to their network. This was implemented through the option in the R&TTEDirective that allows carriers to establish such essential requirements.

S. Crosby (Lucent), S. Roleson (Hewlett-Packard), C. Chamney (Sprint) and E. Wright (Intertek Testing Services)will continue look into the ramifications of EU carriers requiring certain requirements above and beyond the essentialrequirements of the R&TTE Directive. To date, such measures have been adopted in Italy, France, and the UK.

APEC STATUS REPORT

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) MRA implementation continues to progress. The APECTelecommunications Working Group (APEC TEL) selected TIA, the Communications Industry Association of Japan(CIAJ), and the Australian Telecommunications Industry Association (ATIA) to assist with the MRAImplementation Project. Currently, TIA, ATIA, and CIAJ are finalizing their report on the status of MRAimplementation in the region. The report, which is scheduled for release on October 9, details regulations in alleconomies, gives an overview of Stage II and recommendations for implementation, includes reports from recentMRA workshops and various pieces of correspondence, and contains completed conformity assessment survey formsfrom around the region.

As of April 2000, nine economies were participating in Phase I of the MRA. These include Australia, Canada,Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Peru, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and the US. (However, Japan is having somelegislative problems in implementing the MRA, but anticipates resolution of those problems during 2001). Anumber of economies, such as Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, the US, and Japan have discussed thesteps necessary to move into Phase II of the MRA. Four economies (Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, andChinese Taipei) have announced that they will use accreditation bodies under the Asia Pacific LaboratoryAccreditation Cooperation (APLAC) as well as their own individual, national accreditors. Many economies havetaken steps to facilitate implementation of the MRA, ranging from changes in labeling requirements, to amendinglaws, to moving implementation dates forward.

IC is implementing the phase 1 of APEC TEL MRA with the other participating economies. Test labs designatedby USA/NIST, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia have been recognized. Several Canadian testlabs are also designated and recognized by the foreign participating authorities. Canada’s participation in Phase II isnow scheduled for September or early next year. The US expects to be ready for Phase II by December.

Finally, a web site is being developed as a repository for all the MRA documentation in APEC, including technicalregulations, designating authorities, accrediting bodies, and conformity assessment bodies from all economies. Thesite is not yet operational, but will eventually be located somewhere under the APEC Secretariat General site:www.apec.sg. It will be supported through private sector funding; the creator of the site is currently seekingcorporate supporters to get the site up and running. The APEC MRA Task Force has endorsed this site.

The next meeting of the APEC TEL WG is scheduled for the week of Oct 9, 2000 in Indonesia.



CITEL MRA CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

Progress with implementing the CITEL MRA is extremely slow. A seminar will be held concurrent with theupcoming CITEL meeting in Lima, Peru, detailing CITEL member benefits to governments, consumers, andindustry in both equipment-producing and non-equipment-producing countries. Members were urged to come to theOctober meeting with preliminary MRA implementation dates.

It is TIA’s hope that CITEL will stay abreast of the conformity assessment developments facilitating greatercompetition, trade, and development in telecommunications in Europe, North America, and Asia. The followingsteps might be considered:

• Commit to implementation dates for the existing text of the MRA.• Coordinate with APEC economies that are already implementing the APEC MRA.• Coordinate with other private sector players around the world who are also addressing these issues, such as the

European Information and Communication Technology Industry Association, the Australian TelecommunicationsIndustry Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association of the United States, InformationTechnology Association of Canada, and the Communications Industry Association of Japan.

Clearly, conformity assessment practices around the world are rapidly evolving, and regional MRAs are well into theimplementation stage. CITEL economies would benefit from actively participating in what has become a globalprocess in which many European, Asian, and some players in the Americas are already engaged.

DOCKET 99-216 ON DEREGULATION OF EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION AND TELEPHONE NETWORKCONNECTION RULES

Comments and reply comments are in for the NPRM; they were discussed in detail at the meeting, and are posted onthe FCC web site: www.fcc.org. A number of service providers commented that ATIS should be theGatekeeper/SDO. The following summarizes the various positions of the major associations:

• ACIL wants the FCC to continue to maintain the technical rules, and the private sector to develop standards forthose rules; they prefer ongoing control over equipment authorization approval.

• ITI wants SDoC, but without mandatory lab accreditation. They support a common database and believe thelabeling requirements should be reduced to the manufacturer’s name and model number. For standardsdevelopment they support Option A.

• TIA wants both SDoC and Certification as options. For standards maintenance they propose Option A butreplace the gatekeeper SDO with a council made up of stakeholders to ensure fair representation in the selection ofstandards to reference as the network harm standard.

INQUIRY ON THE USEFULNESS OF TIA DEVELOPING A REQUIREMENTS DATABASE IN SUPPORT OF THEMRAS

S. Bipes (Mobile Engineering), is chair of the informal working group designated at the last meeting to investigatewhether TIA should collect the approval requirements for all countries in the MRAs.

A. Quong (IC) explained in his report on the APEC and CITEL MRAs, a company in Australia (Colony Park?) hasoffered to sponsor a website database with all of the APEC member countries telecom type approvals processes.Supposedly this online database is detailed and lists not only regulatory authorities but also approvals processes. Itis scheduled to go online in October. The plan is to get this going and sell/transfer it to CITEL. Between those twoeconomic groups and the addition of an Indian Ocean telecom approvals database (India being key player), 70 of theworld’s countries will have their telecom approvals requirements and processes transparent and online.

These events reduce the value of TR-41.2 developing a database of such requirements. Therefore, the group willdisband.

GATEKEEPER/SDO ISSUE

The following is a proposed TIA letter to the FCC regarding its position on the Gatekeeper/SDO issue:

“TIA would like to reiterate its support of an independent “Council for Terminal Attachment” as stated in ourcomments (June 23, 2000) and reply comments (July 7), Docket 99-216. We believe that this is a superior meansof achieving balance. However, realizing that this approach was not one of the original options proposed by theCommission in its NPRM, we recognize that the Commission may not choose this approach. In that event, TIA



would like to clarify that it is ready, willing, and able to assume the gatekeeper/SDO function as defined in theCommission’s NPRM.”

Consensus held that the letter should be forwarded to the TIA Plenary for approval. Verizon felt strongly that therewas no need to send the letter, but acknowledged the consensus reached.

TR-41.3, ANALOG AND DIGITAL WIRELINE TERMINALS

J. Bress (AST Technology Labs) was elected Chair of TR-41.3

TR-41.3.1 work on adding enhancements to TIA/EIA-777 (Type 2 Caller ID) and merging it with TIA/EIA-716(Type 1 Caller ID) is complete and ready for ANSI ballot. (Editor’s note: The Industry Ballot for SP-4078-RV, tobe published as ANSI/TIA/EIA-777-A, closes November 14, 2000.). TR-41.3.1/00-08-20 (P. Ching, Mitel)provides review comments on the draft. TIA/EIA-716 will be rescinded once TIA/EIA-777-A is published.

TR-41.3.2’s Industry Ballot on SP-4159, Stutter Dial Tone (to be published as ANSI/TIA/EIA-855 if approved),closes on September 25, 2000. TR-41.3.2 spent time going over contributions that will be submitted as negativeballots in order to get an advanced start on the ballot resolution process. This should facilitate actual resolution ofballots at the next meeting.

TR-41.3.2/00-08-x1 (S. Kropp, VTech Engineering) notes that "Smart" non-automatic stutter dialtone detectorswill fail the non-automatic SDT tests in section 4.10.2. TR-41.3.2/00-08-x2 (p. Ching, Mitel) provides bothtechnical and editorial pre-ballot review comments.

TR-41.3.3’s Industry ballot on SP-4352-URV, voice transmission performance for PCM and VoIP terminals, closeson September 18, 2000. This is a revision and upgrade to ANSI status of IS-810, to be published asANSI/TIA/EIA-810-A if approved. Work on the wideband version of this standard, being carried out under PN-4705,has been delayed waiting correction of the ITU wideband loudness rating algorithm, but should be able to proceed bythe next meeting. TR-41.3.3/00-05-014 is the previous TR-41.3.3 meeting report; TR-41.3.3/00-08-015is the agenda. No other contributions were submitted to this meeting of TR-41.3.3.

TR-41.3.4’s VoIP Feature Telephone document has been published as TIA/EIA-IS-811. Individuals may download asingle electronic copy from the TIA web site for personal use. Additional copies in electronic or paper format maybe obtained from Global Engineering. The working group had a short meeting to plan the revision of IS-811 as theprotocol standards it references begin to settle down. Work is expected to pick up on this at the next meeting.

TR-41.3.5, REVISION OF TIA-470-B

D. McKinnon (AST Technology Labs) is the TR-41.3.5 chair. TR-41.3.5/00-08-036 is the previous meetingreport. TR-41.3.5 is proceeding with the revision of ANSI/TIA/EIA-470-B using a tiered document structure. Thiswork is under PN-4350. Ten contributions were considered in the main working group meeting and another fourwere presented in the RF range ad hoc group meeting. The editor of the document has changed companies and is nolonger able to continue. To expedite progress, the editorship responsibilities will be broken up along the lines ofthe tiered document structure. The RF range ad hoc group is planning an interim meeting on October 12-13, 2000,in Melbourne, FL.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-043 (J. Bareham, IEEE) lists major changes in IEEE Standard 269 Revision, Draft 4, August14, 2000 from the1992 version. TR-41.3.5/00-08-045© is a copy of IEEE Standard 269-2000, Methods forMeasuring Transmission Performance of Analog and Digital Telephone Sets, Handsets and Headsets, dated July2000.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-044 (same as TR-41.9/00-05-023) provides 27 proposed errata to TSB-31-B (Part 68rational and measurement guidelines) which are proposed to be incorporated into TSB-31-C.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-037 summarizes all the sections of TIA-470-C. The plan is to segment TIA-470-C into:• Summary (470.000)• Transmission acoustics (470.100)• Core performance (470.200)• Regulatory (470.300), Safety (470.400)• Electrical environment (470.500)• Physical environment (470.600)



• Telephony features (470.700)• Advanced features (470.800).Most of these sections are further segmented and individual editors are being assigned for each sub-segment.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-038 , Proposal for In-Line Phone Filter V-I Characteristic (T. Binget, Paradyne), is the same asT1E1.4/2000-239. It proposes an in-line DSL filter V-I template to provide satisfactory telephone and attachedPSTN equipment operation. In-line filters meeting the V-I template will support single off-hook telephoneoperation as well as two simultaneous off-hook telephones operation. The concept of a V-I template (as opposed toa simple resistance specification) has precedent in several ANSI documents. The V-I template proposed willaccommodate and foster innovations in in-line filter technology. TR-41.3.5 agreed that ADSL was a useful serviceand that some accommodation for the necessary filters to separate ADSL from voice signals must be found.However, it suggested the voltage drop across the filter be kept as low as possible. It was noted that the proposed1.6 volt drop at low currents was greater than the 1 volt drop that has been allowed in TIA/EIA-777 for Type 2Caller ID adjuncts, but that it gave better performance in some cases because the one filter is intended to be usedwith each telephone. S. Whitesell (VTech Innovation) presented an oral liaison to T1E1.4 on this matter.

Based on the desire for a minimum V-I characteristic, TR-41.3.5/00-08-042 , Proposal for Off-Hook V-ICharacteristics (S. Whitesell, VTech Innovation), proposes to take into account:• The desire for a minimum V-I characteristic to prevent current “hogging” by low resistance telephones when two

sets are off-hook,• Changes in the allowed voltage range at low currents due to the elimination of requirements related to obsolete

electromechanical switching systems,• A desire for a maximum off-hook voltage to facilitate operation of line status indicators,• Recognition of the maximum off-hook currents a telephone is likely to encounter.

The author noted that T1E1.1 is revising their T1.401 network interface standard to eliminate requirements related toelectromechanical switching systems. In doing so, they have allowed the V-I characteristics for “customerinstallations” to go to 8.6 V @ 20 mA when commercial power is available and 7.74 V @ 18 mA duringcommercial power outages. Taking into account the 30 ohm allowance for inside wire and series devices, thesenumbers translate to 8 V @ 20 mA and 7.2 V @ 18 mA, respectively, for a telephone set.

There is also a desire to limit the maximum off-hook voltage to 19 V to facilitate the operation of line statusindicators and other devices that monitor line voltage. In fact, TR-41.3.5 indicated their intent to do so in a liaisonletter to T1E1 dated February 26, 1999.

Agreement was reached at the last TR-41.3.5 meeting that the maximum current a telephone was likely to encounterwas that which it could draw from a 52.5 V, 400 ohm source. This limiting load line may be used to establish aboundary, beyond which the V-I characteristic is not specified.

Based on these agreements the author proposes a new graph of the allowed off-hook V-I characteristics of telephones.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-039 , Calculation of Loudness Ratings (R. Magnuson, Siemens), proposes to add the samesection that was added to TIA-IS-810-A (Transmission requirements for narrowband voice over IP and voice overPCM digital wireline telephones) to TIA-470-C as an informative annex.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-040 , Bellcore Talker Echo Tolerance Chart (D. McKinnon, AST Technology Labs), providespublished data for Talker Echo performance as a relation between Loss (dB) and Delay (ms) as deemed acceptable byend users.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-041 (B. Young, Consultant) discusses ear simulators and the free field reference. A goal of atelephonic experience is to simulate a conversation where two people are one meter apart, talking to each other. In aperfect world, the quality of the conversation would be the same with a telephone system and in free space. This iscalled the Ortho Telephonic Reference. Playing a loudspeaker with a perfectly flat free field frequency responsethrough the audio band into the IEC 711 ear simulator of the HATS (IEC 959), the result is a 17 dB peak at 2.8kHz. (For more complete data, see ITU-T P.57 and P.58.) The HATS with an IEC 711 ear simulator replicates theresonances which occur in a typical human ear canal system, and measures at the (ear) Drum Reference Point orDRP. It is because of the resonances in IEC 711 that a loudspeaker with a flat free field response will not measureflat into a HATS. Therefore, if a telephone receiver or headset is to sound the same as a hypothetical flat speaker inthe free field, the frequency response should follow the curves referenced in P.57/58.

Most telephone companies are more familiar with the IEC 318 ear simulator. This type of simulator uses the EarReference Point (ERP) rather than the DRP, which results in a different frequency curve shape.



Basically if the handset or headset is to sound like a flat loudspeaker in a free field, e.g., simulating the orthotelephonic reference, the frequency response should look like either the ERP or DRP transfer function curves.

TR-41.3.5/00-08-046 (R. Hunt, Atlinks) describes multiple methods of releasing a telephone from its holdstate: local release (user performing an operation at the telephone) and remote release (user canceling hold by takingan extension telephone off-hook). Existing performance requirements do not account for any hold release operation.Atlinks feels it is necessary to include such requirements to assure that all products which provide this feature willinteract favorably; they propose specifying the performance of this feature.

ACOUSTIC TEST MEASUREMENT METHODS

The following information on acoustic test measurement methods was omitted from the May meeting report.

The new 269 (IEEE Standard Methods for Measuring Transmission Performance of Analog and Digital TelephoneSets, last edition 1992) standard will include Headset information and replace the existing IEEE1206 Standard (IEEEStandard Methods for Measuring Transmission Performance of Telephone Handsets and Headsets, last edition 1994).

There is an IEEE subcommittee on telephone testing dealing with how to make measurements on receivers. Thereare coordination as well as technical issues that need to be handled. There is a serious problem with fitting newphone designs onto the existing IEC coupler. Work needs to be done regarding what type of couplers should be usedwith different ear pieces. TR-41.3.5 is working on performance measurements. They found that one must usedifferent couplers to make good performance measurements depending on the configuration of the ear piece. TheT470 committee is working on a performance standard for telephones and is addressing this issue as well.

It was indicated that there is a need for the measurement methods to change. Right now some measurements aremade at the ear drum, some are made at a reference point in the ear (“Ear Reference” vs. “Drum Reference”). Amethod to provide tools to transform between the two is needed.

First the point of measurement needs to be worked on, then what the level should be at that point. Someonecommented that the area of acoustical measurements has long since lost any contact with reality with respect toaccurate and relevant measurements. What is needed is a fundamental measurement method. Such an approachwould be very valuable.

The OSHA sound level limits were stated:90 dB 8 hours95 dB 4 hours100 dB 2 hours115 dB 15 minutes or less140 dB impact

Bell Labs has a curve dependent on frequency. The principle is OK but the data is old. More modern data/ curvesshould be available.

Internationally, ISO 11904-01 and -02 deal with acoustic measurements. ETSI is also looking at this and collectinginformation. There may also be some work being done for IEC 60950.

TR-41.4, VOIP GATEWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURES

B. Bell (Cisco) is the chair of TR-41.4. TR-41.4/00-08-050 is the agenda.

TR-41.4 decided to undertake the development of an architectural framework investigation TSB to determine theimpact of an International Emergency Preparedness Scheme (IEPS) on an IP based telephony network. H. Folts(NCS) will be the editor. TR-41.4/00-08-054 (H. Folts, NCS) proposes functional requirements for priorityservices to support critical communications.

TR-41.4/00-08-053 , Half-Channel Loss Plan for IP Telephony (R. Hatherill, Mitel), was provided to TR-41.1for information. The basic concept in the half-channel loss plan is to normalize all transmit levels on an IPtelephony network to the same equivalent SLR (ESLR); digital sets provide the reference SLR of 8 dB by definition.This is not an original concept, as it is the basis of the European dBr reference system, but the recent move tostandardize the North American digital set LRs to the ITU-T recommended levels now makes this practical for IPtelephony networks. R. Hatherill (Mitel) sought comments from the TR-41.1 experts on the viability of theconcept.



A liaison will be sent to ETSI Technical Committee STQ concerning a common work item. This item is thedevelopment of a “Half Channel Loss Plan” model for national and international usage. The purpose of the letter isto present the work which TR-41.4 has already performed to a wider audience for review and comment. It representsthe transmission of working papers and does not represent an attempt to present a formal TIA position.

Ongoing work in the area of E911 was discussed as well as the work associated with creating a transmission standardbased on TSB-122. TR-41.4/00-08-055 is FCC Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seekscoment on new implementation deadline for TTY access to digital wireless systems for 911 calls, CC Docket No.94-102. TR-41.4/00-08-056 (J. Combs, Cisco) provides information on the compatibility of TTY/TDD(Telephone Devices for the Deaf) with VoIP. It concludes that, as no other telecom or IP standards group hasconsidered this issue, that perhaps TR-41.4 should take it on as a project.

TR-41.4/00-08-052 (same as TR-41.1/00-08-017 , R. Hatherill, Mitel) discusses changes required in the lossplan to ensure unconditional network stability with unterminated analog loops. It analyzes the loop stability of theTIA-464-C loss plan connections, and identifies one case that was not unconditionally stable. It proposes to separatedigital sets from the digital trunks for loss planning purposes so as to provide loop stability for digital trunkswithout compromising the digital set OLRs. It was submitted to TR-41.4 for information.

TR-41.5, MULTIMEDIA-BUILDING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

The main agenda item dealt with the Ballot of PN-4657, A full Duplex Ethernet Physical Layer Specification for1000 Mbit/s operating over a maximum 100 meter length of Category 6 Balanced Twisted Pair Cabling (1000 Base-TX). The ballot closed on July 28, 2000 with a vote of 19 Yes, 2 No (Superior Modular and The SiemonCompany), and 15 abstains. TR-41.5/00-08-x2© is draft 3.2 of PN-4657, dated June 27, 2000.

The purpose of PN-4657, 1000BASE-TX, is to provide an Ethernet physical layer specification that is less complexcompared to 1000BASE-T. This Standard will take advantage of the improved transmission performance provided bycategory 6 cabling currently under development in TIA/EIA TR-42 (draft ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.2-1) and ISO/IECJTC1 SC25 WG3 (draft ISO/IEC 11801 2nd edition) and eliminate the (1000BASE-T) requirement of canceling theeffects of crosstalk and return loss.

Annex A of this standard includes a ten bit interface (TBI) specified as an optional interface. This interface provides a1000BASE-X compatible solution for twisted-pair cabling. Annex A is the required interface for the draft ATMStandard 1000 Mbit/s Physical Layer Specification over category 6 twisted-pair cabling, Annex D.

TR-41.5 spent its time resolving the ballot comments, contained in TR-41.5/00-08-x1©. All comments wereresolved; TR-41.5 voted to send the document for industry ballot. (Editor’s note: Industry ballot for SP-4657 closesOctober 27, 2000.)

TR-41.7, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

S. Bipes, TR-41.7 chair, read the TIA copyright statement and reminded the participants that it needs to be includedon any written contributions. The chairman also read the TIA intellectual property statement and asked theparticipants if anyone was holding IP rights that they wished to disclose. There were no responses.

TR-41.7/00-08-001 is the May TR-41.7 Meeting Report from Tyson’s Corner. TR-41.7/00-11-002 is thereport of this meeting.

LIAISON

TR-41.7.1/00-08-023 is an IEC new work item proposal for IEC 60950 Edition 3 Part 2-1 Remote powerfeeding. At the Kyoto meeting of TC74, it was agreed to develop a select group of Part 2 documents supplementingIEC-60950, to cover aspects of IT equipment having limited application such as remote power feeding.

The next full IEC-60950 meeting will be in March 2001. The next version of IEC-60950 will be the fourth edition,estimated to be available sometime in 2001. The current revisions being considered will not likely appear in thestandard until 2004 and this will be the last time that IEC 60950 will be issued or revised.

IEC/ANSI Technical Committee 74 (which administrates IEC 60950) and 92 (which administrates IEC 60065,Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements) have decided to merge and form a new TC. Aresult of this merger will be the birth of a new standard harmonizing and replacing the requirements of IEC 60950



and 60065. Therefore, IEC 60950 Fourth Edition First Amendment (due 2004) will be the last. There is a draftECMA standard that may form the basis of the new standard. TR-41.7 will be monitoring this activity closely.

S. Bipes (Mobile Engineering) noted that he will provide IEC 60664 (Evaluation of creepages and clearances fortelecom equipment) information regarding the maintenance schedule at the Savanna meeting (November, 2000).

TR-41.7/00-08-03 provides information on the number of TIA/EIA-631 and TIA/EIA-571 (and 571-A) standardsdocuments sold, from 1991 through the present. An average of 20-30 of each standard have been sold each year.

TR-41.7.2 is still reviewing PN-4351, Commercial Building Grounding and Bonding Requirements forTelecommunications. Five out of nine sections have been reviewed. J. Romlein (MIS Labs) is the editor.

P. Pool (Verizon) reported that T1E1.7’s Electrical Protection WG is working on the following projects of interestto TR-41.7:

• Grounding and Bonding of Network Telecommunications Equipment.The joint T1E1.5 and .7 WG completed the review of all the ballot comments received with default LB 828d.During the review of the comments received, there was an editorial problem noted with the balloted text. Tocorrect it, it will be necessary to re-ballot. No other problems are anticipated at this time.

• Electrical Protection for Network Operator-Type Equipment Positions - T1.321.T1 LB 859 closed on June 7. There were no comments received so the standard will be submitted to ANSI forapproval of the re-affirmation.

• Technical Requirements for Voltage, Current and Power Levels in Line-powered Transport Systems. T1 LB 874closed on July 17. There were eight sets of comments. All comments were reviewed in their entirety and actedupon. The title changed to “Technical Requirements for Maximum Voltage, Current and Power Levels inNetwork-powered Transport Systems.” The WG consensus was to request a default letter ballot for the document.

TR-41.7/00-08-004 (J. Brunssen, Telcordia) is the NEC Liaison Report. It notes that National Electrical Code(NEC) Code-making Panel action on proposed changes to the 1999 NEC was completed on January 22, 2000. Thenext step, the action and direction of the Technical Correlating Committee (TCC), along with the actions andstatements of the 20 Panels, is included in the “2001 May Association Technical Meeting NEC Committee Reporton Proposals (ROP)” which is now available on the NFPA website (http://www.nfpa.org). The ROP provides thegeneral public with the opportunity to review all the proposed changes to the NEC, along with the Panel and TCCactions, and to provide comments to NFPA by the closing date of October 27, 2000.

P. Pool (Verizon) reported on IEEE P1100. WG P1100 is revising the IEEE Emerald Book “IEEE RecommendedPractice for Powering and Grounding Electronic Equipment (1999)” second edition. This revision is anticipated to becompleted in 2004. The next meeting of the IEEE P1100 will be held in San Antonio, Texas during the IEEE IASPCIC Conference. A meeting agenda has been posted on the working group web site<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/ias/1100/nextmeeting.html>. The meeting minutes can also be viewed at the P1100web site <http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/ias/ 1100/>: use the “minutes” link to view the minutes from pastmeetings.

UL/CSA is set to review proposed PAG (Practical Application Guidelines) on leakage test measurements. Aproposal to modify leakage current limits was dropped until further notice.

TR-41.7 will send a letter to UL 1950 PDE (T. Burke) requesting reconsideration of a proposed PAG pertaining toUL 60950 Clause 5.1.8.1.1, Limitation of Touch Current due to Ringing Signals. UL initially declined toimplement a PAG as it viewed the request as a change of the requirements. TR-41.7 views the request as aninterpretation of a test method intended by the standard.

The modification to the original test circuit that applied ringing in a differential mode with the source grounded, waschanged to the current method of applying the simulated ringing to tip and ring simultaneously in a common mode.This modification was made to both simplify the test procedure (1 test vs. 2) and to address a concern of possibleleakage due to induced overvoltages that would appear on the telecom lines simultaneously in a common mode.During the evolution of UL 1459 to UL 1950, the test was redefined to address the effects of ringing only. This testis only specified for analog circuits that contain ringing voltages. No tests are performed on digital services thatwould also be subject to induction voltages. The cover letter and proposal to UL to reconsider implementing aPAG, were approved by TR-41 and are in TR-41/00-08-052 (same as TR-41.7.1/00-08-17).



TR-41/00-08-053 is a letter from S. Bipes to K. Ravo, Chair of the Bi-National Working Group (BNWG) on UL60950 / CSAC22.2 No. 60950 discussing wire wrap connections commonly used by the service provider industryfor the connection of Telephone Network Voltage (TNV), Low Voltage associated with digital circuits (SELV) andRemote Feeding Telecommunication (RFT) circuits in CO and other network equipment applications. Because ofthe length of the wire-wrap pins (up to 1-1/4 in.), these connections could not be practically spaced far enough awayfrom each other to prevent one pin from contacting others if the pins were bent. In addition, because of the varietyof circuits that can be connected in equipment, in any number and combination, it is not possible to define whichpins will carry specific circuits nor to separate the pins based on the types of circuits they may carry. PendingBNWG approval of this item, TR-41.7 will submit it for inclusion into the IEC parent standard via the USTAGTC74 – IEC 60950 Edition 4 Amendment 1 (2004). A finalized input from TR-41 for the technical outlineproviding immediate relief for this wire-wrap issue in retro-fit or RFT equipment is included in TR-41/00-08-051a letter from S. Bipes to T. Burke, UL. TR-41/00-08-051 also includes the August 17, 2000 draft of the ULOutline of Investigation for Equipment with remote feeding telecommunication circuits intended for retro-fit inlegacy telecommunication equipment©. See also the TR-41.7.1 report, below.

ADMINISTRATION

TR-41.7 is planning a combined meeting with T1E1.7 in Savannah (November 2000). S. Bipes (TR-41.7 chair)will coordinate with P. Pool (T1E1.7 chair), then circulate the revised schedule.

TR-41.7 is reactivating working group TR-41.7.3 for work in conjunction with TR-41.3.5 to review TIA/EIA-631(Radio frequency immunity requirements for equipment having an acoustic output) for its 5-year review. TR-41.3.5is currently reviewing TIA/EIA-470 (Performance and compatibility requirements for telephone sets with loopsignaling) and requested that TIA/EIA-631 be wrapped into and included in it. TR-41.7 felt that since TIA/EIA-631has been established as a recognized standard among regulators and industry, that TIA/EIA-470 should simply makereference to the updated TIA/EIA-631. This review will begin in November, in Savannah. A new chair will beselected for TR-41.7.3 at that meeting.

TR-41.7.1 HARMONIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS

R. Ivans (UL) is the TR-41.7.1 chair. TR-41.7.1/00-08-14 is the TR-41.7.1 agenda. TR-41.7.1/00-08-13 is theminutes of the May meeting of TR-41.7.1. TR-41.7.1/11-002 is the minutes of this meeting. The chairmanread the TIA copyright statement and reminded the participants that it needs to be included on any writtencontributions. The chairman also read the TIA intellectual property statement and asked the participants if there wasanyone holding IP rights that they wished to disclose. There were no responses.

The question was asked if anyone knew about a new directive dealing with eliminating lead from electronics. Thiscould have a major impact on the industry. Anyone with information was asked to provide this information to theTR-41.7 committee for tracking.

BI-NATIONAL STANDARD UL 950 (US) /CSA 60950 (CANADA)

Outl ine of Invest igat ion for Legacy Equipment

There was a discussion of the latest Outline of Investigation proposal for legacy equipment. New proposals weredeveloped and numbered TR-41.7.1/00-08-24, Legacy Equipment Outline of Investigation (OI) Proposal (Rev 1),and TR-41.7.1/00-08-25©, Legacy Equipment Outline of Investigation (OI) Proposal (Rev 2, C. Wellborn, Adtran).TR-41.7.1/00-08-25© is to be sent to UL as a basis for the outline. This outline allows a UL listing in a new ULcategory meeting the requirements of UL 1950 with the primary exception that a 1 kV ac-rms electric strength test isallowed in lieu of distance requirements. It was also recommended that the proposal be forwarded to CSA forconsideration to align US and Canadian requirements for this equipment. The cover letter approved by TR-41, to T.Burke (UL) from TR-41.7 and TR-41.7.1, is TR-41/00-08-051 .

The 1000V dielectric test was again discussed. Members of the service provider community indicated that transientsare limited by the protectors installed at all locations to between 300-1000 Vrms with a 600V nominal rating.Newer installations use protectors with even lower ratings with more accurate clamping than the older carbon blocktechnology. J. Brunssen (Telcordia) indicated that the industry standard is Bellcore TR-EOP-000001, which describesthe network environment including the surge environment in Central Offices. The numbers specified are 600 Vrmsand 1000V surge.



It was also pointed out that 1000V has been used for testing for many years without any problems. This includedolder technologies that used Remote Feeding Telecommunication (RFT) circuits (though they weren’t originallycalled that) such as D4, T1, MFTs and the like. Finally, it was commented that connectors typically employed inthis telecom equipment meet UL 1863 which only calls for a 1000V dielectric test. Testing has shown thatalthough some connectors may pass 1500V, many will not. TR-41.7.1 agreed that the 1000V dielectric test is animportant item that needs to be in the outline.

There was some concern expressed regarding the international (IEC) remote power feeding proposal and whetheradditional modifications directly associated with items in the proposal need to be included in the outline. It wasindicated that the proposal was developed with significant input from the US telecom industry with the intent toalign it from a US network compatibility perspective. Since the proposal has been under discussion in the TR-41.7.1 WG for a long time, it would be more appropriate to recommend changes to the IEC document rather thantry and modify them in the outline.

TNV Access ibi l i ty Using Headset Jacks

R. Ivans indicated that information gathered since the last meeting showed that the types of jacks being used forheadsets are mini/micro plug type that are not unique to telecom applications and in fact are probably more commonto audio applications. Most of the headsets are being designed for wireless applications and some manufacturers areattempting to take advantage of the products that are out there and provide a convenience jack on wired base unitsthat can connect the headsets. The problem arises when these headset jacks are not isolated from TNV circuits,introducing a potential shock hazard at the headset, which are typically designed for connection to SELV typecircuits. It was agreed to keep TNV isolation and Test Requirements on the agenda for future discussions.

Force Test on Wire Wrap Pins

TR-41.7.1/00-08-026 is the Bi-National Standard Revision/Deviation proposal, UL 60950 / CSA C22.2N0.60950. This deviation would exempt from the 10N Steady Force Test requirements, wire-wrap terminals used forthe connection of SELV, TNV and RFT circuits that are provided on equipment that forms part of theTelecommunication Network, up to and including the demarcation point and is located in SERVICE ACCESSAREAS only (this equipment is generally considered Central Office equipment, though it may be deployed elsewherein similarly controlled environments). Such equipment is provided with a guard or cover which preventsunintentional contact during normal operation. It was emphasized that this issue applies to both legacy typeequipment and new CO equipment, as wire-wrap pins are still in wide use and remain a desirable method ofconnection. Therefore, an exemption needs to be included in the outline so it can be used quickly AND it needs tobe proposed as a deviation to UL/CSA 60950. In addition, it should also be proposed as a change to IEC-60950since wire-wrap pin usage is not limited to North America. Without the exemption, equipment utilizing wire-wrappins and incorporating RFT circuits could not meet the requirements. The letter to the US-Canadian Bi-NationalWorking Group (BNWG) via Chair K. Revo (UL-ITE Business Sector Coordinator – Santa Clara), as approved byTR-41, is in TR-41/00-08-053 . See also the TR-41.7 report above.

OTHER UL ACTIVITIES

UL’s Subject 1697 Communications Service Equipment

Communication Service Equipment (CSE, currently a subject category, not yet a UL standard) are intended to beinstalled on the network side of the subscriber demarcation point, up to and including the Subscriber Interface Unit(SIU), Network Interface Unit (NIU), or Network Interface Device (NID). This equipment is intended to be installedand maintained by telecommunication companies, CATV companies, and similar network communicationcompanies which provide public telecommunication, CATV, or other network services to subscriber premises.

UL is developing testing and evaluation objectives for CSE to ensure that the current safety levels and userexpectations of existing telecommunications systems, data systems and coaxial cable (i.e., CATV) systems aremaintained. Among the items considered in the development of these requirements are the following:

• Wiring entering a premises does not contain any voltages or currents in excess of what the user expects or inexcess of what existing wiring systems can safely handle. For twisted pair, the limits in UL 1459 (Level C) orUL 1950 (TNV) apply. For coaxial cable, all hazardous voltages are isolated so that cables that may be handled(i.e., by a homeowner splitting a line or connecting a TV) contain signal levels or Safety Extra Low Voltage(SELV), current limited power only.

• The premises is protected from voltage transients due to lightning or power cross. For twisted pair (power ortelephony) this requires the installation and use of a primary protector (unless the product is intended for specific



use in areas not requiring such protection) and adequate grounding. For coaxial systems, adequate grounding ofthe shield is required and in some cases, a coaxial protector may also be required. In all cases, the equipment shallnot become or cause a safety risk when subjected to such transients. The protection may be part of the equipmentunder test or may be provided as part of the building installation as long as adequate installation instructions andmarkings are provided.

• Unless designed and intended specifically for indoor use, and identified as such, the equipment shall be able tocope with an external environment.

• The equipment shall be able to be installed in accordance with the NEC and/or the NESC as appropriate for theintended installation and use.

• The user, installer or service person is adequately informed about and/or protected against any unexpected hazardsor risks. (This will vary depending on the intended installation and use of the equipment.) An example of this iswarning the homeowner about hazardous voltages on the coaxial cable drop, which might be expected (based ontypical CATV installations) to be at signal level only.

Formation of STPs for UL Standards Development

The WG is seeking information on the new UL STPs for standards development. R. Ivans indicated he would getdetails for the next meeting. J. Bipes (Mobile Engineering) indicated that the intent is to better balance interests andthat an STP can include non-manufacturers as members.

An STP (Standards Technical Panel) will replace the existing Industry Advisory Councils (IACs) and allow forbroader membership. The Standards Technical Panel (STP), comprised of balanced participation from the producer,user and general interest groups, serves as the standards development forum. The STP will serve as the focal pointof UL’s standards development and revision process. Industry Advisory Conferences (IACs) will continue to existas an element of UL’s overall certification program. Current IAC Members will be invited to join the STP.

TR-41.9, FCC TECHNICAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

H. Mar (IC, TR-41.9 Vice Chair) chaired the meeting in the absence of A. Wride (CCL, TR-41.9 Chair). Memberswere asked to identify any knowledge of patents the use of which might be essential to the standard being considered;none was identified. TR-41.9/00-08-034 is the notes of the August meeting. The agenda is TR-41.9/00-08-00 .

TAPAC, TAPAC TTF, TAPAC ATF LIAISON

H. Mar (IC) provided the TAPAC liaison report. TAPAC met June 14 in Ottawa. Copper Mountain Networksbrought forward a proposal to include SDSL in the provisions of CS-03. TAPAC decided to pass the proposal downto its Technical Task Force for review and modification, for release as a provisional document. The TTF called aspecial teleconference in July for a preliminary discussion. IC produced a draft provisional document for furtherreview and comment. A second draft was distributed on August 3; it received general support from major Canadiancarriers and many service providers. Based on this, a letter ballot was issued on August 11, with a due date ofSeptember 8, 2000. Comments from all interested parties are welcome and will be taken into consideration. Duringthe development of this provisional document for SDSL, the TTF also received a proposal for inclusion of HDSL2by amendment to Part VIII of CS-03. The proposed amendment was distributed to the TTF mailing list forcomments. Both the draft provisional document on SDSL and the proposed amendment for inclusion of HDSL2were submitted to this meeting for information and comments.

See also the TR-41.2 report (above) for Industry Canada information relating to APEC and EC MRAs.

Canada hosted the Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee (TSSC) of the May NAFTA meeting in Ottawa.Mexico proposed that a workshop on conformity assessment process and rules be planned for November 2000 inMexico City.

The amendment to the Telecommunications Act, Bill C-17 was put into effect March 31, 2000. The associatedregulations are still being finalized, for expected publication this fall.

IC has announced that the SiteScape website is now functional. Participants may register athttp://www.scc.ca/forum98/tapac/dispatch.cgi to continue receiving updates on the status of TAPAC activities.

The next meeting of TAPAC will take place on October 27, 2000; its task forces meetings will be held October 26.



TCB LIAISON

A. Nguyen (UL) provided the TCB Council liaison report. In response to TR-41’s request to establish liaisonsbetween the TCB Council and TR-41.9, the TCB Council expressed their interest in establishing such liaisons (TR-41.9/00-08-037 ;W. Hurst, TCB Council Chair).

The last Council meeting was held on July 16. A cooperative relationship exists between the TCB Council and theEU RTTE CA; both groups have exchanged information on their organizations and mandates.

On Part 15, A. Wall (FCC) reported that there are problems when TCBs upload the information through the FCCwebsite; the FCC is working on these issues.

The FCC is working on Supplement C, which will allow TCBs to conduct reviews for RF products.

On the accreditation issues, R. Gladhill (NIST) reported that NIST is looking at ways to simplify the accreditationprocess. One option is to accredit “phenomena” instead of per standard. The auditors would review “group of tests”instead of requirements country by country.

T1E1.4 SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT LIAISON

On behalf of P. Adornato (Nortel), H. Mar (IC) reported that at the May T1E1.4 working group meeting in Lisle,IL, the WG agreed that all LB 785 ballot comments had been addressed and that the text, reflecting the agreements,should be sent for re-ballot. Normally this would have resulted in a request for a default ballot since the documenthad already been issued once for ballot. However, since it had been nine months since the ballot had been issued, anddue to a shift in the work direction and to numerous membership changes, the request for the issue of a new ballotwas considered appropriate to enable all current members the opportunity to vote on the document. The revised draftstandard was sent out for a T1 Letter Ballot, LB 869, Draft proposed American national standard - spectrummanagement for loop transmission systems. The letter ballot closed on July 18, with the following results:

• 35 Approvals (11 with comments)• 8 Disapprovals• 11 Abstentions

FCC/IC ACTIONS

B. Howden (FCC) left the room for the discussion of Part 68 streamlining NPRM. TR-41.2 has been involved inthe formulation of the comments and reply comments to Docket 99-216. They are now awaiting the decision fromthe FCC.

FCC RULE CHANGES

Based on A. Wride’s (CCL) report, H. Mar (IC) reported that the FCC has changed Part 24 three times since April2000; most of the issues concern wireless requirements. There was no change to Part 68 or to any other part thatwould affect the work of TR-41.9.

FCC PART 68 ISSUES

P. Walsh (Paradyne, WG Leader) reported on the working group formed at the last meeting to prepare a letter to theFCC identifying the different types of standards covering ADSL equipment that can go under the Alcatel streamlinedwaiver. TR-41.9/00-08-035 is the report of the May (first) meeting of this group. The WG completed theirwork, and their letter (TR-41.9/00-08-036r2) was sent under TIA signature to the FCC. This letter has helpedthe FCC to accept RADSL equipment to be covered under the Alcatel waiver.

TR-41.9/00-08-043 is the FCC memorandum opinion and order granting the Paradyne request for waiver ofsection 68.308(e)(1), out-of-band metallic signal power limitations, of the Commission’s rules 47 C.F.R.§68.308(e)(1), subject to a -12.5 dBm power level as specified in the memorandum. This allows Paradyne to registerunder Part 68 its Hotwire Rate Adaptive Digital Subscriber Line (RADSL) modem using the same streamlinedwaiver procedure approved for ADSL equipment in FCC Alcatel Order.

An additional question being considered is whether transverse balance is applicable. Paradyne sees that transversebalance is applicable in both voice and ADSL operating bands, and encourages other manufacturers to thoroughlyevaluate their equipment. Paradyne also seeks consensus from TR-41.9. A WG on this topic convened, chaired by



T. Bishop, Bell Atlantic; its work was documented. However, this view was not expressed when Alcatel presentedits waiver case to the FCC.

Comments were voiced noting that if new technology emerges using the twisted pair, the new technology shouldtake the existing services into consideration. For example, services with T1 should be similar to ADSL regardingthe spectrum management requirements. There are many issues to consider, such as different operating frequencies,different templates, different classifications of classes, and distances between equipment and COs. As a result of this,the FCC waiver review process must consider many aspects and is therefore very difficult.

TR-41.9/00-08-045 (G. Slingerland, Mitel) is the TIA/EIA-TSB-31-B errata list. There was some discussion onwhether to continue with the list or take steps to issue TSB-31-C; TR-41.9 consensus determined to continue withthe list since there are many unknown issues concerning the NPRM at this time.

Transverse Balance

TR-41.9/00-08-041 (F. Sciabica, Lucent) proposes the alternate transverse balance apparatus for inclusion intoTIA/EIA-TSB-31-B. A discussion was held concerning the impedance of the measuring circuit and it was pointedout that under Procedure, Item 3, if Za is 90 Ohm, then Zc is 1158 Ohm. Since some of Part 68 requirements are inEIA/TIA-470-B, TR-41.9 will need to continue to work with TR-41.3.5 to ensure that the future revisions of bothsets of requirements are consistent. TR-41.9/00-08-041 was accepted; it will become part of the Errata list. Asuggestion was made that it be added as an Annex to TSB-31-B immediately, but, per the discussion in the TR-41.11report (below), it was agreed that this will not be an effective approach; streamlining activities and potential changeswill yet occur. A copy of this contribution will be presented to the TCB Council.

Part 68 Obsolete Requirements

There was no report at this meeting. It was suggested that the word “obsolete” be changed to “outdated”; this itemwill be kept as on-going.

On Hook Z Issues with Cordless Phones

TR-41.9/00-08-038 (C. Chamney, Sprint) discusses on-hook impedance issues with cordless phones. At issueis the fact that on a cordless phone with the feature: “Press any key to cancel Find,” it was found that pressing theTalk key during a Find signal did cancel Find, but also caused the phone to go off-hook. It was noted that thephones should go off-hook only when requesting services. The question of whether or not the functions createnetwork harms was discussed. After a vote, with 14 for, and 1 opposed, it was agreed to place this contribution asan FAQ; A. Wride (CCL) will review this, formulate the FAQ, and upload it.

Through Gain Table Errors

TR-41.9/00-08-044 (T. Tung, Siemens) identifies the through gain table (FCC Part 68.308(b) Table) errors andcorrections. The titles of the OPS column have an error as do the rows OPS and RTE. The corrections will beplaced in Form 730 and the contribution will be a FAQ.

TR-41.9/00-08-053, Alternate test methods for DDS pulse templates (C. Wellborn, Adtran), was a late contribution,it will be discussed at the next meeting.

Web Report

TR-41.9/00-08-046 (S. Roleson, Hewlett-Packard) is the TR-41.9 web report, resources and links(http://home.pacbell.net/sroleson). Of note, it includes links to information concerning EU national requirements onthe TREG a month ago. TREG is the Telecommunications Regulatory Email Grapevine (seehttp://www.rcic.com/cnf/treg.htm for details), an established discussion group on telecommunications, founded by S.Roleson.

DSL WORKING GROUPS

Measurement Techniques

TR-41.9/00-08-039 is the report of the first meeting of the TR-41.9 DSL test procedure working group. Themission of this working group is to first develop a test procedure to measure the average signal power and powerspectral density of an ATU-R against the requirements as specified in the Erratum to the Alcatel Order. As a long-range goal, it will also consider test methods for other types of DSL equipment as they come under the mantel ofPart 68, FCC Rules. At this meeting, the group was tasked to formulate test methods related to DSL CPEconsistent with the mission. The following actions came about as a result of the meeting:



• IC’s CS-03 Part VIII test procedure for ADSL CPE could be used as a framework or reference point that can beexpanded upon.

• It was agreed to research the work of other standards bodies on signal power and PSD testing, and to share thisinformation among the working group members.

• The WG will provide feedback on the draft ANSI spectrum management test procedure and diagrams as given inT1E1.4/2000-002R3. The feedback will be in the form of TR-41.9 contributions.

Further work on an ADSL test procedure will progress in the interim via email.

TR-41.9/00-08-051© (T. Lawler, Cisco) is the draft Australian standard (S043.2) for requirements for customerequipment for connection to a metallic local loop interface of a telecommunications network: digital subscriber line.This draft segments each technology by the range of bandwidth used and provides tests accordingly. Theserequirements provide another perspective; this standard is to be finalized in September.

Spectrum Management Test Diagrams

TR-41.9/00-08-040 (P. Walsh, Paradyne) examines the test diagrams, and to a lesser extent the test procedure,associated with measuring DSL system power and PSD as currently specified in T1E1.4/2000-002R3, draft proposedAmerican national standard, Spectrum management for loop transmission systems. P. Walsh clarified that this doesnot relate to the work in Spectrum Management standard and that Paradyne has other staff involved in thedevelopment of spectrum management. The information contained in this contribution was presented to T1E1.4 inlieu of a planned special joint meeting.

The change in resolution bandwidth was discussed; this will result in the change in testing options that will enablemanufacturers to perform more accurate measurements.

A question was raised on Figure 10, concerning configuration for high frequency measurements. The baluntransformer and different resistance values can be changed when conducting high and low frequency measurements.For low frequency measurements, a differential amplifier can be used as an alternative.

TR-41.9/00-08-052 , Matrix layout for criteria for waiver of 68.308(e)(1), was discussed. The FCC has requestedthat TR-41.9 look into formulating requirements similar to the two conditions in the Alcatel waiver grant but forother DSL technologies, such as HDSL, HDSL2, SHDSL, SDSL, and VDSL. The approach here is to come upwith a list of new technologies, set up an information matrix, and develop a plan for the deployment listing ofpossible requirements from the relevant industry standards that could be used as the basis for the waivers.

The next step is to draft test methods and procedures that should be consistent and repeatable. Since there arepresently many applications, this task is urgent. A working group was formed [C. Wellborn (Adtran), P. Walsh(Paradyne), A. Wride (CCL), J. Carlo (Texas Instruments), N. DesMarais (IC), H. Mar (IC), E. Wright (IntertekTesting Services), and S. Crosby (Lucent)]; C. Wellborn is the group leader. The mission of the group is to reviewthe DSL landscape and to assist manufacturers and committee members in the development of waivers for new DSLtechnologies.

CANADA’S CS-03 DSL ACTIVITIES

TR-41.9/00-08-042 (N. DesMarais, IC) is the draft SDSL provisional standard for Canada. It sets forth theminimum network protection requirements for the certification of SDSL equipment using “2 Binary 1 Quaternary”line code (2B1Q SDSL) terminal equipment. Such terminal equipment is intended for connection to a metallicchannel subscriber loop. It incorporates the T1E1 draft spectrum management standard (T1E1.4/2000-002R3) byreference. The highlighted text in this draft document was added since last revision.

TR-41.9/00-08-047 (N. DesMarais, IC) is a draft of CS-03 Part VIII xDSL. It includes the requirements and testmethods for HDSL2 terminal equipment. It incorporates the T1E1 HDSL2 draft standard (T1E1.4/99-006R4) byreference.

QUESTIONS ON SDSL

J. Long (Coppercom) presented some information on Coppercom products and the related SDSL architecture; TR-41.9/00-08-054 is the letter requesting the presentation. Coppercom seeks help from TR-41.9; they will developa proposal for the next meeting.



ANSI PART 68 WORKING GROUP

TR-41.9 is still waiting for the FCC to make a decision on CC Docket 99-216 regarding the streamlining of Part68. It was agreed to wait until then to start any kind of effort, since TR-41.9 does not know yet where this willlead.

JOINT MEETING WITH T1E1.2, TRANSVERSE BALANCE

TR-41.9/00-08-048 , Transverse Balance Requirement and Measurement in T1.410 (Carrier to Customer MetallicInterface - Digital Data at 64 kbit/s and Subrates), proposes a test figure and associated text for transverse balancemeasurement in T1.410. It is a revision of T1E1.2/2000-025R1.

TR-41.9/00-08-049 (Marconi Communications) is a draft supplement to T1.403-1999 (DS1 Electrical Interface);it includes a test figure and associated text for transverse balance measurement in T1.403. It incorporates the changesagreed by the working group at the May meeting, and provides a new Figure 13 that reflects laboratory work done.It also proposes partitioning the transverse balance test frequency range into three sub-ranges, each to be tested at itsown test level.

TR-41.9/00-08-050 (Marconi Communications) explains how the metallic impedance of a test specimen canaffect the measured transverse balance in both the FCC voltage ratio method and the newer current ratio method.

P. Dillon (T1E1) presented summaries of TR-41.9/00-08-049 and TR-41.9/00-08-050. There was some discussionconcerning the measurement of longitudinal voltage and the states of the EUT during the testing. An assumptionwas made indicating that Zt and Zr are much larger than Zm; therefore, the longitudinal voltage will not changemuch. The measurement was made using 100 ohm, so it does not matter if the EUT is on or off-hook. Additionalinformation can be found at http://www.T1.org.

TR-41.10, PRIVATE ISDN ISSUES

The focus of the TR-41.10 meeting was to report on the ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC6/WG6 (Private telecommunicationsnetworking) Prague meeting (June 4-8, 2000).

The US has given up the secretariat position in ISO/IEC, SC6 (Telecommunications and information interchangebetween systems); the secretariat position was taken by Korea. Australia stepped down from the WG6 secretariat.WG6 technical work is going to be done in ECMA (volunteered); ECMA invited ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC6/WG6members to participate in ECMA meetings. As a result of these changes, TR-41.10 will continue to provide USinputs on the technical issues to ISO/IEC/JTC1 via ECMA. TR-41.10 decided to continue its work on the mailinglist and only schedule face-to-face meetings from time-to-time, as required.

ISO/IEC/JTC1 is in the process of recycling the QSIG standards. They are required to either update or reaffirm thestandards every five years. TR-41.10 will provide the US position regarding the standards due for five years review.

ISO/IEC/JTC1 meetings in Prague produced several Drafts (Table 1, below), which were submitted to the TR-41.10meeting.

DAM (DRAFT AMENDMENT) BALLOT:

Document # Project # Editor D e s i g n a t i o n Tit le Notes6N11137 57.04.03.01 M. Zonoun

(Nortel Networks)13868/PDAM1 Name Protocol

DRAFT CORRIGENDA:ItoEDocument #

Project # Editor D e s i g n a t i o n Tit le Notes (Includereference no.for base doc. )

(WG6N416)6N11559

57.04.02.04 ECMAsecretariat

11582 Defect Report on GenericFunctional protocol

.

(WG6N418)6N11560

57.04.17 ECMAsecretariat

15506 Defect Report on MessageWaiting Indicationprotocol

(WG6N420)6N11561

57.04.19 ECMAsecretariat

15772 Defect Report on CommonInformation protocol



(WG6N425)6N11562

57.01.02.04 E. Völzke 14474DCOR

Permanent circuit modeIPCs

Correction tonormativereference. Aneditorial update ofthe defect reportto be doneimmediately afterQ.920/Q.921approved by ITU-T

(WG6N425)6N11562

57.01.02.03 ECMA 17309 Mapping/UUS 6N11541

(WG6N425)6N11562

57.01.02.05 ECMA 17310 Mapping/16 6N11643

(WG6N425)6N11562

57.01.02.06 ECMA 17311 Mapping/8 6N11645

FDIS/FDAMItoEDocument #

Project # Editor D e s i g n a t i o n Tit le Notes (Includereference no.for base doc. )

(WG6N425)6N11562

57.01.02.01 G. Barnicoat FDIS 18017 Mapping/VPN 6N11309

Table 1. Drafts Produced at ISO/IEC/JTC1 meetings in Prague.

ECMA submitted several documents on ongoing and upcoming fast track standards. These standards are: CallCompletion 2nd Edition, Single Step Call Transfer (Stage 1 and 2), Single Step Call Transfer (Stage 3), SimpleDialog (upcoming fast track), and Call Identification and Call Linkage (upcoming fast track).

A proposal by eOn for changes to Name service to allow proper interworking with National ISDN name deliveryservice was discussed. TR-41.10 agreed to make changes accordingly to ISO/IEC Name Service and produce a newANSI standard.

TR-41.11, FCC REGULATORY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

G. Slingerland (Mitel) is the TR-41.11 Chair. TR-41.11/00-08-028 is the May meeting report, it was approvedwith minor changes. TR-41.11-d is the TR-41.11 document list.

TCB ACTIVITIES

TR-41.9/00-08-032 (C. Berestecky, former TIA TR-41 Chair) is a liaison letter to the TCB Council requestingestablishment of a liaison between the TCB Council and TR-41.9 and TR-41.11, both of which are currentlyworking on issues related to implementation of the FCC’s TCB program. TR-41.9/00-08-029 (W. Hurts, TCBCouncil Chair) is the TCB Council response expressing their wish to also establish such a liaison. At a minimum,meeting reports will be exchanged from this point forward. The next meeting of the TCB Council was scheduled forJuly 16, 2000 in Washington, DC. A report on the liaison between the TR-41 subcommittees and the TCB Councilwas to be reported at that time.

A. Nguyen (UL) gave an update on the last TCB council meeting. A TCBC meeting was held on July 16; anotherwas held August 28. TCBC and R&TTE have begun exchanging information. The FCC is having troublereceiving exhibits from TCBs electronically. The FCC is looking into approving TCBs to certify RF exposureapplications. NIST is reviewing different ways of accrediting TCBs.

PART 68 APPLICATION GUIDE ACTIVITIES

TR-41.11/00-08-034 is the Part 68 Application Guide, Certification of telephone and data terminal equipment,Revision D-3 draft, dated July 16, 2000; it incorporates all revisions received by the last meeting.

TR-41.11/00-08-040(K. Gregersen, 3Com) provides 3Com’s proposed changes. This contribution is an updateto TR-41.11/00-05-021 (K. Gregersen) from the Tyson’s Corner meeting. The purpose of this proposal is toalleviate the problem of having a single product with multiple certification numbers due to multiple locations of



manufacturing in different countries. It proposes that the FCC certification number reflect the country of origin ofthe applicant, not necessarily the manufacturer. This would allow for manufacturing facilities in multiple countrieswhile having the same certification number for one applicant, one product.

A concern was voiced that the existing certification database is based strictly on manufacturing location. Whateffects will changing the country code have? Since customs requires the “made in” statement on the product, thecountry code in the FCC certification number should be of no consequence.

Some manufacturers expressed concern that what is now a smooth process for them might be disrupted if they arerequired to change the country code for their product line. A suggestion was made that a code, e.g., “MUL,” be usedto indicate multiple manufacturing locations. A comment was raised that the reason for the country code requirementis to help with recalls. In response, it was countered that since the manufacturer is best able to limit and scope anyrecall, there is less need for this requirement. Use of the MUL code could be optional for the manufacturer. TheMUL code could avoid the potential customs problem of seeing, for example, a country code of USA in thecertification number and “Made in China” on the same product. Since neither IC nor the FCC, for Part 15, need tohave the country of origin in the certification number, concerns about the details of why this code exists areminimized.

This issue will need to be presented to the FCC to approve or deny. TR-41.11 agreed that a change in the Guidewill be made based on TR-41 approval of one of these proposals.

To the question of whether there were any others changes to make or add to this draft of the Guide, the followingresponses were given:

• Section 28 should now reflect the new format of single page for DSL waiver applications. Draft 3 of the Guidereflects the pre-harmonized format.

• FCC words should be copied from the FCC web site.• Samples of accepted waivers were offered for inclusion into the guide.• The Part 68 Guide editor was tasked with assembling this information so that it can be put into the Guide.

G. Slingerland, the Part 68 Guide editor, will take waivers from the last TR-41.9 meeting, a recent Ciscoapplication, and words from the FCC website and incorporate them into the Guide.

The question was asked whether there is an effective date for each of these revisions to the Guide. After a briefdiscussion, it was agreed that the document revision date marks the “effective date” of the Guide, and any changesbecome effective upon publication. There was general agreement that this draft can move to publication on the TIAweb site; the two outstanding action items were accepted in principle and did not require further review.

BALANCED RINGING

T. Tung (Siemens) reported from the August, 2000 T1E1.1 meeting. T1E1.1/2000-053 is the liaison to TR-41.There is consensus in T1E1 that PBX OPS (off-premise station) balanced ringing will not harm the network. Thereis also consensus that PBX OPS balanced ringing is not compatible with existing network DLC systems. For thisreason, there is no consensus in T1E1 to support the addition of PBX OPS balanced ringing to Part 68 of the FCCRules. For now there is no need to create a new Facility Interface Code to distinguish balanced ringing fromconventional ringing.

FCC ACTIVITIES , NPRM ON PART 68 S TREAMLINING

TIA filed both comments and reply comments on the FCC 99-216 NPRM.

TR-41.11/00-08-030 provides TIA comments on the FCC proposals for the review of the Part 68 certificationprocess. Having examined the three options proposed by the FCC for relying on private industry development oftechnical criteria for network harms requirements, TIA recommends implementation of Option A: FCC identificationof a “gatekeeper” SDO that will establish and publish binding technical criteria for CPE developed pursuant to ANSIprocedures for consensus bodies. However, to guarantee complete openness and impartiality, TIA proposes that,rather than having a single gatekeeper SDO, the gatekeeper be structured as a Terminal Attachment Council (TAC)of representatives from all interested stakeholders. TR-41.11/00-08-030 outlines the major responsibilities thatwould be assigned to the TAC.

TIA supports the adoption of a DoC option for equipment approval. It believes the FCC should establish a schedulefor terminating its direct involvement in the equipment approval process in a timely manner. It proposes thatexisting marking and labeling requirements remain unchanged until an industry position is finalized; industry



committees rather than the FCC are best positioned to determine the future need for labeling and databaserequirements and to develop any such requirements. TR-41.11/00-08-030 provides comments on many otherFCC concerns.

TR-41.11/00-08-031 contains the TIA reply comments in support of expansion of the DoC program to includePart 68 registration. By allowing the DoC option, the public will benefit by having access to advancedtelecommunications equipment sooner and at lower cost, the FCC will realize lower operating costs, and industrywill have simpler and more efficient authorization processes. A change to DoC for equipment subject to Part 68 atthis time would be consistent with international trends in conformity assessment; the implementation of the ETSIRTTE Directive in April made the concept of DoC applicable to all telecommunications equipment.

For some reason, the TIA reply comments were not listed electronically on the FCC web site; they were submittedon time and TIA has confirmation of receipt. It was mentioned that the FCC is interested in taking action on thisbefore the US election. TR-41.9 is now waiting for the FCC to act.

FCC DATABASE CONTENTS

The question has been raised: Why is all the information being entered into the FCC database? Three months agoTIA sent a letter (TR-41.11/00-08-033 ; G. Slingerland, TR-41.11 Chair) to the USTA (United States TelecomAssociation) to ask the carriers this question. TIA has received no confirmation of USTA receipt of this letter, norany communication from the USTA since the letter was sent. The USTA may not have met since the letter wassent. J. Balinski (Telcordia) offered to determine the USTA meeting schedule; the Chair agreed to follow up with theUSTA, inquiring whether the letter was received and whether USTA is planning on acting on the letter.

FCC QUESTIONS

TR-41.9/00-08-035 contains a question sent to the FCC about letters of agency used for signing of the 730form. Section 5 Item 44 of the TIA Part 68 Application Guide requires that separate agency letters must beapplication-specific and less than 120 days old; is this still the case? A general discussion of this question was held.It was the opinion of some that the existing format be retained, with an expiration; this would allow control ofagents who act within the letter of the agency letter but without the wishes of the applicant. Others were of theopinion that the date limitation requirement should be more of a suggestion or recommendation rather than a stiffrequirement. Others felt that the Guide should reflect that an agreement is required, but should not, as a necessity, tiedates or products, and should leave that to the applicant to control. It was universally believed that the letter ofagency is stipulated in the rules, but a date timeline requirement is not. If it is not in the rules, the FCC has no realproblem changing the Guide.

A task group [C. Pinkham (Atlinks USA), J. Shinn (Nortel), E. Wright (Intertek Testing Services)] was formed todevelop words to propose first to TR-41.11 and then to the FCC for acceptance into the Guide.

IP PHONE HAC COMPLIANCE

No work was done on this item since the last meeting. Discussion revealed that it is unclear whether therequirements of 68.316 and 68.317 apply to IP telephones; for example:

• Part 6 requires accessibility for the disabled to all phones.• The scope of Part 68, (68.2) does not include IP interfaces.

The question was asked: If there is no way to test a requirement, how is the requirement established? It wassuggested that the likely response from the FCC as to whether HAC applies to an IP phone would be that it isunclear whether or not it does apply. The FCC is not currently preventing the marketing of IP phones that have nothad HAC tests done; it is not likely that it will until a complaint stimulates clarification and the establishment oftest procedures.

There was general agreement to the following:

• The HAC technical requirements do apply (magnetic flux and volume control) to IP telephones.• Part 68 certification is not required due to the scope of Part 68.• Part 68 certification is possible at the manufacturer’s discretion.• The lack of designated test procedures is a technical problem.

A task group [T. Tung (Siemens) J. Shinn (Nortel), A. Nguyen (UL), C. Chamney (Sprint), J. Posse (Sony), andV. Van (Cisco)] agreed to put together a note to the FCC, for TR-41.11 to review and “bless.” It will discuss the



issue, lay out the possible conflicting issues relating to HAC requirements for IP telephones, lay out how TR-41.11interprets the requirements, and prompt the FCC into fulfilling its obligations in this area.

WG1, TCB LABELING

C. Pinkham (Atlinks USA) is the WG1, TCB Labeling Chair). WG1 was assigned the task of producing anindustry proposal on labeling and database requirements. The goal of this meeting was to come to an industryconsensus on Part 68 labeling and a database, and to create a list of the agreed points. Working Group 1 agreed towrite up that consensus within three weeks of this meeting; the final paper will be submitted to the FCC as anExparte contribution, and given to TR-41.2, TR-41.9, and the TCB Council.

TR-41.9/00-08-036 is a summary of the 99-216 NPRM and the TIA comments to it; it was the drivingdocument for this meeting. The Labeling Working Group had not come to any finalized suggestions at the time ofTIA comments, so TIA left an open space to be able to submit the task force opinions at a later date. This focus ofthis group is to come up with this position.

TR-41.11/00-08-037 is the report of the WG1 teleconference meeting held on July 20 on labeling and database.During this discussion, it became clear that CPE labeling and database requirements are closely related. Participantsrepresenting carriers felt very strongly that, regardless of the regulatory process adopted by the FCC, certaininformation about the CPE must be available in order to configure their plant effectively, and to troubleshootpossible network harms efficiently. Additionally, there was consensus that the information needed for a productrecall should be available in case of network harm. If there were no central database, then all of the requiredinformation would have to appear on the product. This would greatly complicate product labeling and wasunacceptable to manufacturers. If, however, a central database existed, carriers were willing to accept a minimalamount of information on the product itself as long as the database contained all the required information. This“Minimal Set” of information consists of the following:• A unique identifier to link the CPE to a complete set of information in a central database• An equipment descriptor that would indicate, to the service provider, any special considerations for billing or

plant configuration• An indication of the REN of the CPE

A side discussion on “Country Code” took place. The “Country Code” included in the existing Certification Numbercould be the Applicant’s country code rather than the code for the country where the equipment was manufactured.This would allow applicants to keep the same Certification (registration) Number for products built in severaldifferent countries.

TR-41.11/00-08-038 provides the WG’s recommendation for a new Part 68 registration number format that willgreatly reduce the verbiage of the label:

Format: FCC68AAAEQYY123

• FCC68 Is a “fixed field” in the registration number that would serve to indicate that the CPE meetsrequirements of 47 CFR part 68.

• AAA Is the existing Grantee Code• EQ Is an Equipment Code that would indicate to the Service Provider any special signal handling requirements.

This is different from the existing equipment codes listed in the 730 Application Guide. It is defined by a separatecontribution by C. Chamney.

• YY Is the REN without a decimal point (e.g., REN of 1.0 = 10, REN of 0.3 = 03). In the case of a “Z” ringer,ZZ would appear. In the case of registered components without a network interface, “NA” would appear.

• 123 Is a product identifier, unique when combined with the manufacturer’s Grantee Code, of at least one and upto 10 characters (including one or more dashes (-) if desired) similar to the product identifier used by the FCCOET in its FCC ID. This unique product identifier would be defined by the manufacturer, not the FCC/TCB, andchecked by the FCC/TCB for uniqueness within the applicant’s Grantee Code.

TR-41.11/00-08-038 also includes an interim procedure intended to apply during that period of time when TCBsare in operation but before 47 CFR part 68 labeling requirements can be changed. The only difference from currentprocedure would come in the 5 digit “Number assigned by the FCC.” The FCC (or a TCB) would still assign thisnumber, but each TCB would be assigned a block of numbers that it, and only it, could use. This would identify theTCB that did the original registration and would also avoid having several TCBs issue the same number to anapplicant who might register products with several TCBs.



TR-41.11/00-08-039 (P. Von Preysing, NEC America, Inc.) is a detailed list of items from both Form 159(Remittance Advice Form) and Form 730 submissions that create the Part 68 submission; these items may or maynot be in the present database.

These contributions reviewed; their contents, and general labeling and database issues, were discussed. The pros andcons of different database implementation options were discussed. An initial review of potential new databasecontents was conducted; this requires further comment from carrier representatives involved in trouble calls who werenot present at the meeting. Below is a summary of the agreed points:

• A number is required on the product for certification or declaration (if it becomes a reality).• The proposed new number format that reduces the amount of information required to be included on the product,

while still providing the carriers the information they need, was accepted (TR-41.11/00-08-038).• This new format fits within the number format system currently used by OET.• Two options regarding OET and CCB numbering systems were discussed. In order of preference they are:

1. Combined system. It was felt that combining the numbering systems to minimize the information requiredon a product is preferable. Since the accepted new numbering system for Part 68 product fits within thecurrent OET numbering format, this is a definite possibility. The only issue blocking this option is thepossibility of the same grantee code having already been assigned to two different grantees, e.g., one in theCCB database (that may ultimately exist with the gatekeeper) and one in the OET database. If the FCC willresolve this concern, then this option can easily become a reality. The existing OET and CCB databaseswould not need to be combined. Since a single number could represent compliance to one or both sets ofrequirements, it would then exist in one or both databases. Also, an identification format was proposed toreplace “FCC ID” (currently required by OET) that would clearly indicate whether a given number representscompliance to OET requirements, compliance to CCB requirements, or to both. Where AAAEQYY123 is theaccepted number format proposed from TR-41.11/00-08-038 the proposal is as follows:For compliance to Part 68 requirements: FCC68-AAAEQYY123For compliance to OET’s RF requirements: FCCRF- AAAEQYY123For compliance to OET’s RF and Part 68 requirements: FCCRF68- AAAEQYY123

2. Two number system. If the database conflicts mentioned above cannot be resolved, it was agreed to accept asystem in which one number is used for compliance to OET requirements, and another number is used forcompliance to CCB requirements, much as exists today. The number for compliance to CCB requirementswould be the new format accepted above. It was felt that because there may be some reluctance on the part ofthe FCC to resolve the concerns outlined above, and that resolving them may take more time than desired, itis most likely that this two number option will be implemented.

• Currently, a database is still required to track these numbers for compliance to CCB requirements.• The carriers need to be able to easily obtain information from this database.• The language to be used on the labeling and in the database, regardless of where the information resides, is

English. For example, if the modified centralized database is implemented in a non-English speaking country andthe manufacturer is required to make some information available on its web site, it shall, as a minimum, beavailable in English.

Three options were discussed for implementation of the database. In order of preference they are:

1. Forklift FCC database. With this option the existing FCC database and the software application that controls itis relocated, or transplanted, to the gatekeeper. All agreed that this is the simplest, quickest, and cheapest toimplement. If declaration becomes a reality, all TCBs and manufacturers will be required to send a defined list ofinformation to the gatekeeper who has this information entered into the database. Since the gatekeeper will notbe granting certifications, only clerical effort will be required to maintain the database and enter the information asit arrives.

2. New centralized database. With this option the gatekeeper creates a new database and runs the whole thing. Asabove, if declaration becomes a reality, all TCBs and manufacturers will be required to send a defined list ofinformation to the gatekeeper who has this information entered into the database. However, this is different fromthe list in the “forklift” option; the list of items to be included in the database has been initially roughed out.Due to expected high start up and maintenance costs, it unlikely that access to the information would remain freeof charge.



3. Modified centralized database. With this option the gatekeeper maintains a new database of all entities that haveproduct certified, or declared as appropriate. It would not contain any specific information regarding products ofthese entities. It would include a hyperlink to each entity’s web site, or to TCB web sites if the applicant doesnot have a web site of it’s own and decides to use that route. Each of these entities would be required to placetheir own certification or declaration information on their own web site according to an industry-agreed format andcontent. It would need to be easily located and easy to search by the certification or declaration number.

At some point in the future, once confidence in the new system without the FCC involved is achieved, the databasemay no longer be required. This may take a couple of years. At that time the industry may collectively decide tocontinue or cancel the database and the need to supply information into it.

E. Wright (ITS) agreed to compose a draft white paper listing the proposed labeling format, the proposed databasecontents, and the proposed method of setting up and maintaining the database, for submission to Working Group #1for review, and then submission to the FCC. The TR-41.11 Chair will then send the draft database contents matrixto J. Salinas (Southwestern Bell) and T. Bishop (Bell Atlantic); they have more experience with researching troublecalls and can better comment on the contents of a proposed database.

TR-41 PARTIAL MEETING ROSTER, AUGUST 14 – 18, 2000, VANCOUVER, BC

Steve Whitesell, VTech Innovations Chair, TR-41Tailey Tung, Siemens Chair TR-41.1Pierre Adornato, Nortel Chair TR-41.2Jim Bress, AST Technology Chair TR-41.3Bob Bell, Cisco Chair TR-41.4Jim Romlein, MIS Labs Chair TR-41.5Steven Bipes, Mobile Engineering Chair TR-41.7Anh Wride, CCL Chair TR-41.9Mo Zonoun, Nortel Chair TR-41.10Greg Slingerland, Mitel Chair TR-41.11

3Com Kaan GregersenACTION Consulting Ken Krechmer [email protected] Larry Bell [email protected] Chris Wellborn [email protected] Jim WieseAG communication Systems F. Sciabica [email protected] Frederick B.Atlinks USA Inc. Clint Pinkham [email protected] Communications Joanne McMillenBell Canada Norman Smith [email protected] Corporation Rafi Rahamin [email protected] Communications James MazzoliniCasio Communications Lananh Tran [email protected] Systems John Combs [email protected] Systems Ram Jagadeesan [email protected] Systems Tim Lawler [email protected] Systems Christopher Saleem [email protected] Systems Victor Van [email protected] Standards Review Elaine Baskin [email protected] Walter Overcash [email protected] J. Long [email protected] Communications Peter Melton [email protected] T. Chau [email protected] Bill Howden [email protected] Scott Roleson [email protected]



Industry Canada Nicolas Desmarais [email protected] Canada Andrew Kwan [email protected] Canada Henry Mar [email protected] Neal KingIntel Debra Jackson-Shannon [email protected] Testing Services Erick Wright [email protected] America Robert ChrostowskiLittlefuse Thomas Varga [email protected] Technologies Anthony CaggianoLucent Technologies Steven Crosby [email protected] Technologies Charles LichtenwalnerMarstech Robert Marshall [email protected] Richard Hatherill [email protected] John Needham [email protected] Greg Slingerland [email protected] Engineering John Bipes [email protected] Engineering Steve Bipes [email protected] Communications System Hal Folts [email protected] America Makoto HokariNEC America Patricia Von PreysingNortel Networks Pierre AdornatoNortel Networks Roger Britt [email protected] Networks John Shinn [email protected] Networks Peter TarverParadyne Peter Walsh [email protected] Duncan Bees [email protected] Don MurraySCC Communications Eric SorensenSharp Electronics Skarbek, BryanSiemens Information Richard Frank [email protected] Information Bill Kammer [email protected] Information Ron Magnuson [email protected] Information Tailey Tung [email protected] Electronics Inc. Posse, JulioSprint Local Telephone Division Cliff Chamney [email protected] Electronics Phillip Havens [email protected] Associates Dorothy LockardTelcordia Technologies John Balinski [email protected] Technologies Jim BrunssenTenovis/ETSI STQ Joachim Pomy [email protected] Instruments, Inc Jim Carlo [email protected] Randy IvansUL Anh Nguyen [email protected] Communications Richard PankoVerizon Communications Percy PoolVerizon Communications Jack Smith [email protected] Communications Joe Webb [email protected] Innovations Stephen WhitesellVTech Engineering Horatio Fenn [email protected] Engineering Joseph Poon



REPORT OF THE DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING,AUGUST 28 - SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, DUBLIN, IRELAND

G. Young (British Telecom) is the DSL Forum (formerly ADSL Forum) technical committee chair. The Board ofDirectors Technical Steering Committee consists of T. Starr (SBC), G. Young (BT), M. Jackson (Virata), F. VanDer Putten (Alcatel), and K. Kahn (Intel). DSLForum00-222 is the minutes of the Orlando (May) plenary meeting.The DSL Forum web site address is: http://www.adsl.com.

DSLForum00-204 (G. Young, BT) provides the latest revision of the technical road map for the DSL Forum. Itpresents a comprehensive overview of the organizational structure and working method of the technical committee,and its relationship to other standards bodies; it also provides an in-depth summary of the current key objectives,priorities, and schedules for the individual technical working groups.

ARCHITECTURE AND TRANSPORT WORKING GROUP

M. Jackson (Virata) is the A&T (formerly ATM) WG Chair. B. Dugerdil (Motorola) is the Vice-Chair. D. Allan(Nortel) is the Chair of the ATM Network Architecture break-out group. DSLForum00-288 contains the A&Tpresentation to the closing DSL Forum plenary.

A&T is involved in wider architectural and transport issues, such as those associated with SDSL or VoDSL; hence,it was deemed appropriate to rename the group to have a single home for all such issues. The organization hasevolved from that described in DSLForum97-228. The A&T group comprises two break-out groups which are theNetwork Architecture Group (NAG) and the Access Transport Group (ATG).

The objective of NAG is to produce recommendations that describe the overall end-to-end architectures relyinginitially on ATM transport over the ADSL access connection. Each recommendation will describe the specificlocation and type of functionality and interfaces required in the various domains of a specific end-to-end architecture.These domains include the service provider, network access provider, and customer domains. NAG is primarilyfocused on the ATM layers and higher layers of the protocol stack. It will address the various possible architecturesin a serial manner to complete work on the higher-priority scenarios first.

The initial objective of ATG is to make recommendations on how to map ATM transport over a DSL accesssystem. ATG focuses on ADSL specifics, and identifies how these specifics may affect ATM transport; it istherefore primarily focused on layers up to the ATM layer and should be independent of layers above that.

The following WT are currently being developed:

• WT-053, Protocols at the U reference point (NAG)• WT-054, Service models and requirements for delivery of real-time multi-service over DSL (NAG)• WT-049, ATM over ADSL Recommendations (enhanced version of TR-017) (ATG)

In DSLForum00-249, SVC implications across the DSL reference model (M. Zimmerman, ADC), SVC and SPVC(UNI 3.1/4.0) are considered as a possible augmentation for several applications in the ADSL framework. PVCscaling issues, utilization as service selection and VoATM (with Megaco/H.248 call control) are a few applicationswhich can well benefit from the SVC environment. Complexities and lack of consistent implementations had poseddifficulties to consider SVC as a commonly available functional capability. This contribution suggests that theADSL WT-049 will provide better guidance to SVC requirements across the ADSL reference model. An alternativewill be to embark on a new WT for applicability definition of ATM signaling in the ADSL reference model.

A new WT on Requirements for SVC deployment over ATM/DSL networks was begun. The co-editors are fromADC and Alcatel. It is focused on:

• Applications that benefit from SVC• Network requirements (and gaps)• Auto-configuration and scaling impacts

It is consistent with standards and DSL Forum TRs and WTs; it includes DSL ATM. Work on this WT will beginat the December meeting in Portland, OR.

A new living list item of trust model requirements was agreed as “under study.”

The WT-053 U ref. protocols were reviewed. The review process will continue through the December meeting. Thestraw ballot is expected in first quarter 2001.



DSLForum00-278 (B. Trumbo, 3Com) proposes to use L2TP to multiplex the multiple PPP sessions, and totransport L2TP directly over the ATM layer on the DSL circuit. L2TP is a standardized encapsulation capable ofcarrying multiple PPP sessions. It has a defined, very lightweight layering over AAL5 for use with ATM transport.

The WT-054 Multi-service requirements baseline was established. The work plan is joint with the VoDSL group.WT-054 was started at this meeting; it will be in the review process for the next two meetings.

AUTO-CONFIGURATION

WT-048, ADSL CPE Auto-configuration, was reviewed at this meeting. It will be sent for straw ballot at theDecember, Portland meeting. It was agreed to commence follow-on work to WT-048. Interim meetings werescheduled to advance this.

DSLForum00-310, Scope of Activities for the Auto-configuration Working Group (P. Silverman 3Com), notes thatthe auto-configuration ad hoc task force divided the problem of auto-configuration of the CPE into two related issues:The configuration of the “connection” and the configuration of the “service.” The “connection” was basically definedas the bearer channel from the CPE through the NAP’s network to the interface point with NSP, while the “service”is those aspects of interface that are involved with the interaction between the CPE and the NSP. WT-048 providesan interface for configuration of the “connection,” while the specifications for the configuration of the “service” arestill to be defined.

DSLForum00-309, Use of DHCP for Auto-configuration (D. Allan, Nortel; P. Silverman, 3Com; B. Stark, BellSouth; J. Nevius, Copper Mountain; S. Rahmanian, Fujitsu; D. Grossman, Motorola; C. Mele, Paradyne; D. Ward,Sphere Communications; D. Hochberg, Telrad; M. Borden, TollBridge), identifies a number of deployment scenariosthat the auto-configuration effort should address. A requirement that emerges from the scenarios is a relativelylightweight configuration mechanism that also functions to permit more complex service discovery and managementto be automatically “discovered” where deployed. The contribution recommends DHCP as such a mechanism andoutlines many additional benefits.

DSLForum00-313, Proposal for Auto-Configuration Transport mechanisms (D. Van Aken, Alcatel), describes thebasic problem with auto-configuration and develops a technical solution. It is expected that political, regulatory andconflict-of-interest issues may arise when network nodes owned or operated by different business entities are requiredto exchange configuration information as part of an end-to-end autoconfiguration solution. Therefore, theautoconfiguration protocol should be progressed on the basis that it must allow for network nodes not exchangingsuch information. Quantification of the anticipated political and regulatory issues should be put on the agenda of thenext service provider council.

DSLForum00-237 (P. Gili, Cisco) describes the OpenDSL (consortium) approach to DSL CPE automaticconfiguration. The A&T WG is considering this proposal involving dual use of VPI/VCI 0/16 to significantly alterthe capability of the interface (dual stack: ILMI plus a separate configuration path). According to the text in ILMI4.0, access to additional information beyond non-adjacent IMEs is not precluded. DSLForum00-237 was added to theliving list as under study and sent by liaison to the ATMF.

The OpenDSL approach uses the DSL CPE Element Manager concept. The DSL CPE Element Manager does notdirectly manage DSL CPEs, primarily because it could not practically handle the load associated with managingmillions of DSL CPEs. The Proxy Element offloads the DSL CPE Management System by brokering loadintensive management functions, such as fault monitoring, DSL CPE configuration, service provisioning, andservice activation.

The network element hosting the Proxy Element Function (PEF) is a Proxy Element. Any network elementcontained by a DSL network can host the proxy element function. A proxy element serves a subset of the DSLCPE devices contained by the DSL network. A DSL CPE can not be served by more than one proxy element. Thefollowing list summarizes the requirements a network element needs to satisfy in order to serve as a proxy element:

1. The network element must support an ATM interface to the DSL network.2. The network element must be reachable from the DSL CPE Element Manager.3. The network element must be capable of terminating AAL5 circuits originating from each served DSL CPE.4. The network element must provide sufficient memory to accommodate the Configuration Information Base (CIB)

for each served DSL CPE.

For reasons of scalability, a network element becomes better suited to host the Proxy Element Function as itsproximity to DSL CPEs approaches adjacency. For this reason, the DSLAM provides the logical candidate for



hosting the PEF. A DSLAM ideally serves those DSL CPEs adjacent to it (i.e., those attached to the DSLAM).The resources required to support these DSL CPEs fall well within the capabilities of most DSLAMs. In addition,serving only adjacent DSL CPEs avoids VC scaling problems.

To further enhance scalability, the proxy element function introduces the ability to pre-provision DSL CPEs. Thefollowing list summarizes reasons why pre-provisioning enhances scalability:

• A provider can set-up the configuration for a DSL CPE without requiring the installation of the DSL CPE.• A provider can modify the configuration for a DSL CPE without requiring the DSL CPE to be accessible (e.g.,

the DSL CPE may be switched off).• A provider schedules provisioning tasks, thereby allowing bulk provisioning tasks to be carried out at off-peak

hours.

As the above figure depicts, this DSL management architecture relies on the IETF network management framework(RFC2571). This framework specifies goals that strongly align with those of the OpenDSL architecture.

In this architecture, the DSL CPE Element Manager, network elements hosting the proxy element function, andDSL CPEs are SNMP entities. An SNMP entity represents an implementation of the architecture defined by theIETF network management framework, consisting of an SNMP engine and one or more associated SNMPapplications.

The Modem Management Interface (MMI) leverages work done by the ATM Forum on the Integrated LocalManagement Interface [ATMF-ILMI]. The ILMI primarily consists of three components: an AAL5 transportmapping for SNMPv1 messages, a collection of MIB modules describing the information managed by the interface,and elements of procedures defining the behavior of the interface. While the MMI leverages the ILMI architecture, itis not ILMI. Essentially, the MMI is an SNMP application, carrying out prescribed elements of procedure. TheMMI leverages the SNMPv3 framework defined by RFC2571, RFC2572, RFC2573, RFC2574, and RFC2575.

DSLForum00-304 (from 21 companies) notes that DSLForum00-237 has proposed an auto-configurationarchitecture different than that envisioned by the auto-configuration ad hoc work effort at the DSL Forum. The 21companies restate the reasons and virtues of the incumbent architecture and recommend that the DSL Forum notdeviate from the recommended architecture.

DSLForum00-285 (D. Allan, Nortel) is the OpenDSL and Auto-configuration ad hoc report. It notes the twomanagement architecture proposals and discusses the directions:

• DSLF Ad Hoc Autoconfiguration WG ATM/AAL/encapsulation configuration via ILMI (ATMF standard/ WT-048) service config/ management at L3 (separate architecture)

• OpenDSL (from DSLForum00-237) SNMPv* and OpenDSL MIBs. Alternative to both WT-048 and a proposednext step. Coexistence is via autosensing DSLAM capability. Includes CPE functionality, some home networkand software image management.

NEXT STEPS

It was agreed that the Auto-configuration Ad Hoc WG be elevated to full WG status (Chair TBD). Interim meetingsof this Auto-configuration WG will be full meetings with the ability to make decisions. An interim meeting wasagreed for October 4, 2000, in Marlborough, MA. Another meeting, proposed for November 2 in Swindon, UK,will determine the work plan and the WTs to be produced. Both meetings will have teleconference bridges.

UPDATES TO WORK PLAN

Updates of TR-025, Core network recommendations, and on TR-032, Premises recommendations, are scheduled tobegin in 2001.

TRANSPORT SUB-WORKING GROUP

R. Gade (Pulsecom) is the TSWG Chair. DSLForum00-288 contains the TSWG presentation to the closing DSLForum plenary. WT-049, ATM over ADSL Recommendation, TR-017 update, is the active project of this SWG. Itis currently in the review process; the straw ballot is expected in first quarter 2001.

DSLForum00-234 contains the current living list items of the Transport WG.



STM/CHANNELIZED VOICE

DSLForum00-208 (B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; P. Stephenson, Centillium; C. Milbrandt, Cisco; R. Segev,Velocity Semiconductor) is a proposal for Channelized DSL. It discusses a method that uses the ADSL physicallayer framing for transport of STM and ATM traffic simultaneously. This method is named Channelized VoDSL(CVoDSL) due to its similarity to channelized TDM networks. This extension to current ADSL standards providessignificant reduction in complexity for VoDSL CPE as well as low latency for voice services. (See also the VoDSLWG report, below.)

DSLForum00-269 (B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; S. Abbas, Centillium; B. Jenness, Siemens) summarizes therequirements and options available for signaling in CVoDSL networks. It proposes signaling requirements to beadded to the baseline text for CVoDSL described in DSLForum00-208.

DSLForum00-271 (B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; P. Stephenson, Centillium; C. Milbrandt, Cisco; R. Segev,Ikanos; D. Benini, Aware; D. Hochberg, Telrad; M. Morgenstern, ECI Telecom; P. Kusior, Analog Devices; B.Jenness, Siemens; D. Langston, SigmaTel; M. Magnusson, Catena; V. Davar, Legerity) proposes baseline text forWT-043, Annex C to the VoDSL requirements document. This annex supports the dual transport of STM and ATMframed data simultaneously over the ADSL physical layer.

DSLForum00-273 (S. Abbas, Centillium; B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; D. Hochberg, Telrad; B. Jenness,Siemens) discusses the impact of dynamic rate repartitioning (DRR) on the ATM traffic management. DRR is anoptional ADSL-specific function that reallocates bandwidth between two sub-channels, e.g., AS0 and AS1. Thetotal aggregate bandwidth of the link does not change during DRR adjustments. Due to DRR, the variable nature ofthe ADSL link capacity between sub-channels may pose issues to the ATM network management and signalingfunctions. However, the way to deal with these issues is not different from what is currently recommended in TR-017, and is common to all VoDSL solutions.

DSLForum00-244 (G. Wetzel, Covad) discusses a number of issues that result from dynamic cell rate adjustments inthe ATM layer. The operation of an ATM layer over a dynamically changing physical layer has been muchdiscussed in the ATM Forum and elsewhere. Any solution that addresses this will likely be implementation-dependent. Further work is necessary to study the various traffic management ramifications of incorporating adynamic cell rate into a normal ATM service. All the mechanisms studied to date have been based on theassumption that the dynamic cell rate is caused by a failure/fault and not by events that occur during normaloperation. Without a clearer understanding of the effects on ATM connections with committed QoS of dynamic cellrates in normal operation, Covad cannot support the inclusion of an STM/ATM partitioning of the digitaltransmission bandwidth of the xDSL layer.

CVoDSL is in the VoDSL active living list. The traffic management issues will be incorporated into the TransportGroup living list for editing into WT-049 as informational text.

CELLS IN FRAME VOICE OVER DSL

DSLForum00-223 (S. Blasingame, Jato; J. Reister, Copper Mountain; P. Simmons, Netopia; M. Jones, Flashcom;M. Taylor, CopperCom; D. Frankel, Jetstream; M. Borsetti, NorthPoint) is a proposed addendum to WT-043 AnnexA to describe VoDSL using AAL2 packets over a DSL connection with TR-003 packet mode-based transport. Thisis an important application of BLES, and is not covered by the current text of WT-043 Annex A. This was resolvedwithout any need to change Transport Modes.

WT-049, ATM OVER ADSL

DSLForum00-250 (L.O. Haster, Ericsson) provides some editorials for inclusion in Revision 1 of WT-049, ATMover ADSL.

DSLForum00-235 (R. Gade, ECI Telecom) proposes text to modify ITU Signaling Section 6.2 in WT-049, basedon the ETSI liaison received to the May, Orlando meeting (DSLForum00-132). It also proposes that this modifiedtext be sent back to ETSI as confirmation of the Transport SWG understanding of their liaison.

The Transport WG sent a liaison (DSLForum00-308) to ETSI SPAN 9 on SVC Signaling in Dual LatencyEnvironments in response to DSLForum00-132: Liaison to DSL Forum from ETSI SPAN9, April 11, 2000received in Orlando (May, 2000) regarding the ITU signaling issues in our WT-049, “ATM over ADSLRecommendation.” The Transport WG decided to update the WT-049 document as shown in this liaison based ontheir understanding of the information provided.



VODSL (VOICE OVER DSL) WORKING GROUP

G. Wetzel (Covad) is the Chair of the VoDSL WG. The VoDSL WG Editor is P. Simmons (Starnet).DSLForum00-284 is the minutes of the Orlando (May) meeting. The presentation of the VoDSL WG to the finalplenary is contained in DSLForum00-288.

The objective of the VoDSL group is to provide a set of requirements, architectures and recommendations thatprovide end-to-end solutions for the delivery of interoperable derived telephony services. Proposed solutions shall,where possible, be based on existing standards, and where not possible, influence the development of internationalstandards to meet DSL Forum requirements. The key focus areas are broadband loop emulation services (BLES) andvoice over multi-service data networks (VoMSDN). It is expected that these two groups will approximately alignwith use of VToA and VoIP respectively.

DSLForum00-246 provides the ATM Forum status on VoDSL issues from VMOA and NM Working Groups as ofAugust 22, 2000. The VMOA group decided to continue work on Loop Emulation Service to include:

• H.248-based CCS between the CP-IWF and CO-IWF• More explicit support for SVCs to establish the AAL2 VCC between the CP- and CO-IWF• File transfer over the AAL2 VCC• Support for ISDN PRI as a user side interface• Definition of a MIB for LES

The VMOA working group also established a baseline text (DSLForum00-246) on Next Generation Network accessto include:

• An agreed reference model, with functional description of subscriber and transit gateway• Requirements for interfaces• Requirements for signaling protocols and signaling transport• Requirements for H.248 packages• Requirements for bearer transport• Support of LES configurations

The Network Management group made progress on developing the enhancement to the ILMI-Auto-configurationMIB. A copy of the current baseline text is included in DSLForum00-246. The following areas are addressed:

• Corrections to the syntax and semantics of the Configuration Failed Trap.• Enhancements to the definition of AAL2 traffic parameters.• Addition of a Layer2 Protocol ID and enhancements to the Layer3 protocol ID.• Technical enhancements to the proposed MIB.

WT-043

The DSL Forum has approved TR-036, requirements for VoDSL (WT-043 Main and Annex A on BLES). TR-036is publicly available on the DSL Forum web site at www.dslforum.org. DSLForum00-261 is a patent statementfrom Nortel relating to WT-043.

DSLForum00-248 is a patent statement from Jetstream Communications as the owner of U.S. Patent No.6,075,784, entitled “System and method for communicating voice and data over a local packet network,” issued June13, 2000. A continuation application of U.S. Patent 6,075,784 is currently on file in the United States Patent andTrademark Office. In addition, an international application is on file under the PCT. This patent and/or patentapplications may apply to DSL Forum recommendations under consideration, including WT-043.

DSLForum00-251 provides Ericsson’s 2nd straw ballot comments on WT-043, Annex B. A number of versions onAnnex B have been produced since the Orlando meeting; these comments are based on DSLForum00-226. TheEricsson view is that Annex B cannot be approved after the straw ballot considering the provided comments and thetotal understanding of the VoDSL functionality.

DSLForum00-238 (E. Deichstetter, Lucent Technologies) suggests the single requirement cited below be moved intothe main body via addendum and the remainder of Annex B become an informative Appendix. The purpose of theVoDSL working group has always been to generate service level requirements for the service of providing VoDSL.This group has historically shied away from specifying any signaling and bearer transport or signaling methods. Therationale for having a main body working text and Annexes for BLES and VoMBN was that the main body wouldprovide requirements common to both models and the annexes would provide model-specific requirements. The straw



ballot version of Annex B contains only one requirement that is specific to the VoMBN model (last paragraph ofSection B.4 “Gateway Control”).

DSLForum00-256 (L-O. Haster, R. Murphy, Ericsson) brings up the need for continuity check of the copper wirebetween the CP-IWF and the phone. In the SCN telephony world, the Local Exchange is responsible for service andneeds functionality to localize faults on the connection from the PSTN/ISDN network to the user telephony set.This raises the need for amendments of the requirements in letter ballot WT-043 for VoDSL.

DSLForum00-252 (L-O. Haster, Ericsson) is a proposed replacement for Annex B of WT-043.

DSLForum00-277 (G. Webb, TollBridge) is a white paper describing an evolutionary path for MultiserviceBroadband Networks (MBN). To accomplish this, the paper focuses on the benefits of several signaling protocols(H.323, MGCP and SIP) and, especially, on their ability to be used as complementary components in an inevitablymixed protocol environment.

DSLForum00-211 (D. Ward, Sphere) is Annex B (Multiservice broadband network) working text including textsuggested since the Orlando meeting.

DSLForum00-213, Signaling protocol white paper, and DSLForum00-212 H.248 white paper (both from D. Ward,Sphere) are tutorial papers on signaling (H.323, MGCP and SIP) and call control protocols (H.248); they wereincluded with Annex B at the Orlando meeting as an appendix. It was suggested then that they be resubmitted aswhite papers.

DSLForum00-264 (J. Chou, Intel) proposes new text to replace sections B.1-B.3 of WT-043. The Broadband LoopEmulation Service (BLES), as described in WT-043, Annex A, utilizes packet-switched technologies, such as ATMAAL2, Frame Relay, to tunnel voice streaming and signaling information between Service Provide Equipment andCustomer Premise. The conversion of TDM voice to the packetized voice in the local loop is an important step intelephony evolution, as it paves the road toward the end-to-end packet telephony, or Internet Telephony, which iswhat Voice over Multi-service Broadband Network (VoMBN) is intended to provide. Therefore, BLES should beconsidered as the stepping stone during the evolution from TDM-based PSTN to VoMBN.

Over the decades, many factors have been driving the PSTN evolution. However, nothing is more important thanthe emergence of the Internet, as far as the impact to PSTN is concerned. The increasing competition of the Interneteconomy in the global market is demanding carriers and service providers to rapidly and cost effectively deliver notonly the traditional telephony services in a much larger scale, but also many advanced services. Unfortunately, thetraditional PSTN architecture is not capable of meeting the demands of the Internet economy. Therefore, theobjective of VoMBN is to provide a new network architecture that will meet the market’s needs in the Internet era.

VoMBN should be based on a distributed architecture, as proposed by standard bodies, such as ETSI TIPHON, MSF(Multiservice Switching Forum), and ISC (International Softswitch Consortium), where the call control is separatedfrom the media transport. This contribution describes the reference model, network architecture and requirements forVoMBN.

DSLForum00-205 (D. Allan T. Taylor Nortel) proposes a VoMBN Call Control Evolution. During the discussionssurrounding work on the WT-043 Annex “B” straw ballot in Orlando, there was general consensus that the DSLForum needed to converge on a signaling protocol recommendation for VoMBN. DSLForum00-205 makes arecommendation as to a call control signaling hierarchy to encompass BLES, VoMBN and Multi-media over MBN(MMoMBN).

DSLForum00-274 (R. Koopor, Cisco) explains that BLES requires a GR-303 network and requires AAL2 type 3signaling of the ABCD bits (on-/off-hook, ringing power). GR-303 with Transport Independent Signaling allowsAAL2 type 3 too, but because Transport Independent Signaling itself is more full featured and supports a full Class5 call agent, it can be used to tell the CPE to generate network busy tones, do DTMF collection, or, in conjunctionwith a call agent, perform full class 5 replacement functions which are difficult-to-impossible to do with BLESunless the interface is to something like a mini-Class 5 which looks and feels like a Class 5 switch. BLESrequires the trunking gateway to initiate signaling, so that idea only works if the Call Agent is also the trunkinggateway. This is not the case with the known Call Agent products which run on high-end UNIX boxes. TransportIndependent Signaling mechanisms are more full-featured than BLES - because the message set is morecomprehensive. SDP (session description protocol), which is part of MGCP, can describe many aspects of theconnection which BLES currently doesn’t have the capability to do.



WT-043 Annex B straw ballot status was withdrawn. The work will continue as WT-043, but not as part of thestraw ballot. VoDSL WG reworked the scope, and the contents of WT-043. The existing contents of WT-043 weremoved to the living list. The contributions from Cisco (DSLForum00-274), Ericsson (DSLForum00-252), andIntel (DSLForum00-264) were added to the living list. The new focus is to be on IAD interoperation with amultiservice broadband network, e.g., requirements at and protocols across the U interface. A call was made forcontributions on requirements and architecture within the new scope and focus. The Requirements and Architecturewill determine the document structure.

MANAGEMENT ANNEX A OF CO-IWF

The requirements and architecture for the management of TR-036 Annex A of CO-IWF were discussed with O&NM.The scope was defined, and WT-056, which will develop an addendum to TR-036 (Requirements for VoDSL), wasopened.

Joint work with the ATM Forum was proposed, and a liaison was sent. This liaison informs that WT-043 Main andAnnex A were approved and are now TR-036, which is available on the DSL Forum web server(www.dslforum.org). WT-055, BLES over FUNI, was opened, and sent to straw ballot. A call for contributionswas made. The working text for WT-055, an addendum to TR-036 Annex A, contains a specification for using theATM Forum AAL2 LES protocol and procedures as an application riding on the ATM Forum FUNI specification(consistent with DSL Forum TR-003 packet mode transport).

This liaison also informs that DSL Forum has started the following new work items:

• A WT to be titled “Requirements for SVC deployment over ATM/DSL networks.” DSL Forum would like todocument and address both requirements and any obstacles to deployment of switched services such that they canaddress the increased demand for services requiring more than “best effort.”

• A WT to be titled “Service models and requirements for delivery of real time multi-service over DSL.” The focusis to document the technology independent requirements for delivery of multimedia services. This is a naturalextension of the VoDSL work and will be a joint project of the VoDSL and architecture WGs.

DSLForum00-307 provides WT-055v1, Addendum to TR-036 Annex A, Requirements for Voice over DSL. Thetext of TR-036 Annex A includes text in section A.1.3 that refers to AAL2 over ATM and FRF.11 over IP voicetrunking, but it does not include text referring to AAL2 over TR-003 Packet Mode DSL. This is an importanttechnique that is widely used in existing deployments of DSL. DSLForum00-307 proposes the changes to supportAAL2 over TR-003.

STM TRANSPORT OVER VODSL

DSLForum00-269a, Signaling for CVoDSL, was discussed in the Transport WG STM/Channelized Voice report,above. Work on frame mode VoDSL began in earnest. It is expected to reach straw ballot at the Portland meetingin December.

A liaison (DSLForum00-300) from the VoDSL WG to Q4/15 reports the status of CVoDSL. At the May, Orlandomeeting, VoDSL WG added STM transport of VoDSL to its living list. Additional contributions on this topic weresubmitted to this meeting. DSLForum00-271, the proposed baseline text for Annex C to WT-043, was included inthe living list. Some concerns were raised about the system level complexity of this approach, including:

• Concerns about the traffic management of an ATM layer sitting on a physical layer that dynamically changes (atthe frequency of on- and off-hook events); in particular, how cell rate changes are dynamically reflected in theconnection admission control and cell scheduling aspects of the ATM layer

• Network management of an ATM layer that sits on a dynamic physical layer• Control and management plane interactions between narrowband and broadband partitions, i.e., cross layer

management issues

VoDSL WG agreed to further investigate the system-level ramifications of this approach and how it providesbenefits, to differentiate it from applications of existing VoDSL specifications. Some potential benefits are:

• Lower latency across the DSL• Simplification of CPE• Simplification of narrowband voice delivery across the DSL access network

A call was made for contributions on STM mode VoDSL to:



• Further identify and quantify benefits of STM mode over existing BLES• Further clarify traffic management of ATM layer over dynamic bandwidth physical layer

OPERATIONS & NETWORK MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP

G. Bathrick (Lucent Technologies) and P. Adams (British Telecom) are the O&NM WG Co-Chairs. DSLForum00-229 is the minutes of the Orlando (May) meeting. The O&NM WG presentation to the closing plenary is containedin DSLForum00-288.

The O&NM WG is primarily focused on provisioning, fault management, and the element management layer tonetwork management layer interface. It is concerned with operational, network management and process aspects ofoperating an ADSL-based access network. The immediate priorities for this group are:WT-024, ADSL Management architecture and requirementsWT-039, ADSL Network element management (Updated TR-005)WT-042, ADSL service MIBWT-044, O&NM WG work listWT-046, CORBA specification for ADSL EMS/NMS interface

The new facilitator for the Fault Management focus group is D. Gellerman (Hekimian).

DSLForum00-292 (T. Starr, SBC) discusses the need to increase the reach of DSL systems, and suggests thefollowing technologies be considered for NGDLC: Remote DSLAM, RAM in the RT, DLC line card, wireless,Improved ADSL, all digital ADSL, cancel noise & taps, improved loop qualification, SHDSL, mid-span repeater andloop extender. The facilitator of the DSL Everywhere focus group is D. Modzelewski (RealTech Systems). Topicchampions have volunteered.

DSLForum00-286 (S. Harris, ECI Telecom) notes that DLC cabinets make up 20-30% of the access lines (more inspecific telcos) and suggests RAM in the RT as the most desirable solution.

DSLForum00-242, The ATM Forum Loop Emulation Service (LES) standard (T. Chu, Coreon), specifies a methodof transporting “packetized” voice over DSL circuits. It has gathered a lot of support in the industry. Providinggood network management would speed up the acceptance of the LES specification. DSLForum00-242 proposes aset of requirements for a MIB for performance management of the central office interworking function device (CO-IWF). One companion contribution (DSLForum00-241) proposes the requirements for configuration management.DSLForum00-240 is the response to the proposal, describing an SNMP MIB that satisfies those requirements

DSLForum00-268 is a 21 company contribution describing high level requirements and architecture for themanagement and operation between the CO-IWF and CP-IWF using Loop Emulation Services over AAL2. TheLES Phase 1 specification, af-vmoa-0145.000, defined an SNMP-based LES EOC for the management of the LoopEmulation Service on the CP-IWF. However, it left the definition of the MIB that is required to support thismanagement activity as a separate work item. DSLForum00-268 proposes a management framework as a first stepin developing the LES Phase 1 MIB. The MIB objects that are required will be addressed as a second step in definingthe LES Phase 1 MIB. The goal of this framework is to ensure the interoperability between CO-IWF and CP-IWFand eliminate the bilateral interoperability activity between Voice Gateway and Integrated Access Device (IAD).

DSLForum00-283 provides the draft liaison response (August, 2000) from The Alliance for TelecommunicationIndustry Solutions (ATIS) Ordering & Billing Forum (OBF) Ordering & Provisioning (O&P) Committee. L.Thurber, Sprint Communications will be the liaison.

DSLForum00-282 provides a ATIS TCIF (EDI/ECIC) request to establish liaison.

ADSL MANAGEMENT

DSLForum00-255 (R. Abbi, Alcatel) identifies updates made to WT-046v1 to include IDL definition for performancemanagement based on DSLForum00-113 that was approved in the May, Orlando meeting. WT-046v1 has now beenupdated and is available as WT-046v2. Following new sections have been added:

• 3.3: ADSL performance management interfaces• 6.2: ADSL performance management module (ADSL_PM.idl)

DSLForum00-258 (A. Mayer, B. Atwater, K, Armington, Telcordia) proposes enhancements to the CORBA IDLdefinition supporting performance management described in DSLForum00-113.



The modifications to WT-046 proposed in these contributions were agreed. WT-046 now moves to straw ballot.

O&NM WG also discussed the future of WT-042. WT-042 contains an SNMP MIB of a simplified model thatprovides flow-through provisioning and fault management of ADSL services. DSLForum00-275 (G. Karmous-Edwards, ECI Telecom) provides the CORBA IDL of the same model. It proposes that this CORBA IDL be added toWT-042 as Appendix C.

HDSL2/SHDSL MANAGEMENT

A liaison to IETF (DSLForum00-302) was prepared on the current MIB (including DSLForum00-218 andDSLForum00-221). The DSL Forum Operations and Network Management working group would like the IETFADSL working group to consider the changes identified to the HDSL2/SHDSL draft MIB before the last call ismade.

DSLForum00-218 (R. Murphy, Ericsson) provides comments on the draft IETF HDSL2 Line MIB (draft-ietf-adslmib-hdsl2-01.txt)

DSLForum00-216, Definitions of managed objects for HDSL2 lines (S. Mantin, K. Sherman Orkit), notes that thegeneral approach to xDSL MIB definition should be to make MIBs of different DSLs as similar as possible,considering their structure, tables, tables indexes, parameters and mechanisms. This approach will allow moreeffective implementations of SNMP agents and management stations that may manage several different DSLs in oneDSLAM. DSLForum00-216 provides the proposed changes.

DSLForum00-221 (M. Morgenstern, ECI Telecom) proposes changes to the IETF draft, Definitions of managedobjects for HDSL2 and SHDSL lines (B. Ray, Verilink). In its May meeting, DSL Forum decided to support theSNMP MIB for both HDSL2 and ITU-T G.991.2 (G.shdsl) currently developed at the IETF. DSL Forum also sent aliaison to the IETF with some recommended modifications. The June 2000 version of the IETF draft still does notprovide a satisfactory support for the required management functions.

DSLForum00-232 (G. Bathrick, Nokia; B. Ray, Verilink) is a proposal to extend SHDSL/HDSL2 EOC. Itproposes addition of a new message to the HDSL2/SHDSL EOC to support the transmission of SNMP betweenterminal units. This is proposed as a simple modification based on prior work; it works for both HDSL2 andSHDSL. It provides a standard open method for configuration, monitoring, and control of a remote DTE. Easy toimplement, it will require minimal changes to existing EOC implementations. ITU support may be needed; it wasagreed to send this proposal to the ITU.

SERVICE PROVISION FLOW THROUGH

WT-050, DSL service flow-through management overview, is ready for straw ballot.

LOOP MANAGEMENT

DSLForum00-243 (D. McClure, Acterna; B. Rodey, HyperEdge; B. Sange, Krone GmbH; J. Teixeira, NHCCommunications; M. Lavoie, Simpler Networks; R. Flaminio, Tollgrade) urges the formation of a new focus groupwithin the DSL Forum Operations & Network Management WG to provide the basic definition, technicalrequirements and interoperability criteria for Loop Management Systems (LMS). The LMS is a vital new NetworkElement that directly addresses access providers’ needs to scale to meet DSL market demands by automatingprovisioning, test access, loop qualification and testing functions.

A new Loop Management focus group was formed; the facilitator is M. Lavoie (Simpler Networks).

TESTING & INTEROPERABILITY WORKING GROUP

F. Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) is the T&I WG Chair. The meeting report is contained in DSLForum00-301 (F.Kaudel, Fluke). DSLForum00-193 is the report of the T&I WG May, Orlando meeting. DSLForum00-293 (F.Kaudel, Fluke) contains the T&I WG presentation to the closing plenary (same as presentation in DSLForum00-288). DSLForum00-230 is the T&I WG minutes of the July 19 teleconference. DSLForum00-231 is theInteroperability Sub-WG (ISWG) minutes of the Orlando (May) meeting.

The T&I WG is concerned with cross-vendor interoperability, ADSL implementation conformance statements (ICS),test procedures and configurations. It examines test parameters and test conditions, both at the electrical/ physicallayer and higher protocol layers. It examines the types and levels of interoperability testing, produces test suites and



test configurations, and captures experience from test cases. The T&I WG will expand and develop testabilityrequirements, hooks for testing and testability, and design for test recommendations.

The ISWG of the T&I WG addresses interoperability test plans and testing events. The ISWG includes vendorsplanning to participate in interoperability testing events and demonstrations. The ISWG agrees on and refines thetest plans and technical focus of interoperability plugfest/staging events. The ISWG has also been actively involvedin producing an RFI to select a test house. Current work items include:

• WT-030, ADSL static interoperability test specification• WT-051, ADSL dynamic interoperability testing, including consideration of ADSL over ISDN (revision/update

of TR-029)• WT-052, PPP static interoperability testing• Refinement of the G.lite, G.dmt, G.shdsl, and HDSL2 test plans in the ISWG

The T&I WG also holds joint planning sessions with the marketing group to plan for interoperabilitydemonstrations at public events such as SuperComm, CeBIT, and CES. To extend interoperable capabilities, thefollowing four dimensions are being explored:

• Interoperability with line cards capable of both full rate and lite operation via G.994.1 (G.hs) to demonstrateflexibility and wider applicability of the modems.

• Extend performance for data transfer over longer copper loops in the presence of realistic noise to demonstrateincreased customer reach potential of the technology.

• Extend interoperability to higher layers in the protocol stack (ATM, PPP, IP) to demonstrate a wider range ofapplications.

• Testing aspects of network management/ configurability of the technology to demonstrate automated flow-through provisioning and order handling to ISPs and to demonstrate plug & play capability for service turn-up toconsumers.

A T&I WG and ISWG teleconference will be held on October 25.

JOINT SESSION WITH ARCHITECTURE & TRANSPORT

Higher layer protocols (PPPoA/RFC1483, Multiprotocol encapsulation over ATM adaptation layer 5) and potentialinteroperability issues were discussed jointly with A&T WG. Minutes relevant to this joint session (DSLForum00-195, action items in DSLForum00-193) were briefly discussed. Open issues (action items) related to PPP, includingmailing list traffic on WT-052, were discussed. It was agreed to keep PPP link quality monitoring (RFC1989), andNetwork access identifier (RFC2486); it is too early for DHCP and WINS extensions. IPCP will be added for IPv6.A joint session on alignment of PPP test suite/test plan with A&T WG WT on higher layers is planned for theDecember, Portland meeting.

LIAISONS

DSLForum00-087.1 (R. Brown, AG Communications/ Lucent) discusses non-continuous events in the telephoneoutside plant. This was discussed in previous meetings (see reports of the February and May DSL Forum meetings,CSR Vols. 11.2, 11.7). In discussion at this meeting, it was agreed that this document requires a further change toFigure 3, which is still incorrect (-48V is missing). R. Brown will help resolve this issue.

DSLForum00-214 (S. Blackwell, Centillium, Associate Rapporteur, G.shdsl) is the most recent available version(June, 2000) of draft Recommendation G.991.2 (G.shdsl). It was agreed to request an update, for use in the G.shdsltest plan work.

DSLForum00-296 is a liaison to ITU-T SG15/Q4 on the recent activities of the T&I WG. It asks how G.994.1(G.hs) is intended to operate with G.991.2 (G.shdsl); it requests a copy of the most recent versions of both draftRecommendations.

DSLForum00-265 (R. Brown, AGCS) is a reflection of a recent contribution accepted as a change to TSB-31 by TR-41 at their August 2000 meeting. It provides an alternate transverse balance test procedure based on a ratio ofcurrents; it represents forward thinking on performing this test at high frequencies typical of DSL technologies.This was recently approved for TSB-31 and the FCC. In discussion, it was noted that the approach of Figure 1 hasno parasitics, and will become part of FCC Part 68 (TIA TR-41.9); this approach could work for HDSL2 also.

DSLForum00-279 (P. Carew, General Bandwidth) is a request from OpenVoB (Voice over Broadband InteroperabilityProject) for liaison with DSL Forum. P. Carew gave a slide presentation on this (DSLForum00-301, Attachment



5). OpenVoB is a special interest group consisting of service providers along with IAD/MTA, voice gateway, andsoftswitch vendors seeking to accelerate the deployment of VoB technologies. OpenVoB’s focus is on achievingmulti-vendor interoperability in 2000 based on open VoB deployment models. OpenVoB is seeking to open adialogue with the DSL Forum to explore how they can best assist and serve the DSL Forum as it begins to addressVoDSL interoperability and IAD management and provisioning. They would like access to and formal permissionto use the DSL Forum’s work on test plans. The first OpenVoB meeting was in August. This contributionincludes the OpenVoB white paper.

DSLForum00-206 is a liaison from TIA TR-30.3 informing of their joint meetings with T1E1.4 held in May. Itlists and summarizes documents distributed and reviewed, and notes future meetings.

DSLForum00-280 is a liaison from TIA TR-30.3 informing on their August meeting. It contains several new loopsand three draft DSL IC loop combination tables; one of these will be created for each combination of circuit type(CT1/2 or CT3), loop type, and business or residential. In discussion, it was felt that more information is needed onhow to use loop combination tables and on how the loop simulators relate to each other; T&I WG agreed to forwardthese questions to TR-30.3.

DSLForum00-287 is a liaison from TIA TR-30.3 presenting a block diagram for the simulator from their Augustmeeting. This augments DSLForum00-280.

DSLForum00-295 is a liaison response to the TIA TR-30.3 input liaisons. In particular, it refers to the liaison onsimulators. It is not obvious to DSL Forum why TR-30.3 proposes using several line simulators and noisesources. Although this closely simulates reality, it would mean extra complexity in implementing the tests, and itwould add test uncertainties. DSL Forum suggests an alternate approach: use one line simulator with one noisegenerator, where the line simulator takes several cable sections into account, and the noise simulator takes theaggregate noise into account, as it can be expected at the unit under test. Aggregate noise sources simulating thenoise situation in the TR-30.3 simulator proposal can be created by combining the expected noise at different cablepositions with transfer functions and crosstalk transfer functions of the cable. DSL Forum asks for TR-30.3comment on this possible approach.

B. Dugerdil (Motorola) gave a slide presentation on ETSI bakeoffs (DSLForum00-301, Attachment 3).Interoperability testing in ETSI TM6 is conducted to improve TM6 standards. A. Ehre (Cetecom) presentedinformation on the Helsinki meeting of ETSI TM6. It was noted that ITU-T G.992.1 Annex B is different from thesimilar ETSI model. It was reported that the MoU with ETSI has been fully established; the legal basis for a non-restricted cooperation has been achieved. ETSI noise models were briefly discussed, with the SDSL models beingstable and the A and B models for ADSL still under discussion in ETSI (the issue of performance testingrequirements for RFI ingress was re-introduced).

DSLForum00-297) is a liaison to ETSI TM6 concerning the recent testing and interoperability activities and thenoise model activities of ETSI and the DSL Forum. Noting the recently achieved MoU between them, as an initialsupport for ETSI testing and interoperability activities, DSL Forum presents ETSI with information on therelationship of DSL Forum T&I WG documents. DSL Forum is developing test plans for Annex B of G.992.1(G.dmt); they solicit ETSI comments on their interest in organizing plugfests for Annex B, and on the performance(dynamic interoperability) requirements that are not in the G.992.1 Recommendation. DSL Forum is initiating itswork on G.shdsl interoperability testing (a test plan is in progress); it asks TM6 if ETSI is interested in startingwork on improving SDSL standards to enable system interoperability, and what activities will be taken to achievethis goal. Further, DSL Forum asks to be informed of the recent work on DSL noise models.

ENHANCEMENTS TO TR-031 (EX -WT-028)

DSLForum00-210 (D. Hay, Admit Design Systems) provides comments and questions on the test proceduresdescribed in TR-031 (WT-028v9), ADSL ANSI T1.413 - 1998 Conformance Testing. This was discussed, includingthe response to some of these issues on the DSL testing e-mail list during August. S. Valcourt (UNH) and F.Kaudel (Fluke) will develop a living list item on these issues.

It was pointed out that some of these issues are beyond the scope of T1.413 (tolerances); perhaps a liaison can clarifythis issue. The issue of measurement uncertainties arising from parameter variances was discussed, and related toreference uncertainties.



QUALIFICATION

DSLForum00-185 (J. Montenot, Cetecom), the qualification program and testing reference model, from the Maymeeting, was discussed again, with support for multiple reference systems; perhaps three may be appropriate. Thishas since been submitted to the DSL Forum’s board of directors and the G8.

DSLForum00-267 (J. Montenot, Cetecom) is a summary of DSLForum00-139 (Concept for the ADSL qualificationprogram; P. Cousin, A. Ehre, J. Montenot, Cetecom), that was presented and discussed at the May, Orlandomeeting. It describes the structure of a DSL qualification/certification system, and adds some considerations toanswer a question from the Orlando meeting concerning how to support multiple labs for interoperability testing. Itconcludes that the proposed qualification system is the only road to multiple labs and self funded testing, because itcreates a competitive and fair market environment that encourages the test house to invest in DSL testing and themanufacturers to design the necessary test tools. Further, DSLForum00-267 encourages the creation of a specialinterest group to study the applicability of such a qualification scheme to the specific case of DSL technologies.

DSLForum00-267 was reviewed; it provides less detail than DSLForum00-139. It was noted that the modelproposed is similar to that used for Bluetooth, which took four to six months to set up. Questions were raisedconcerning the qualification scheme and the scalability to more than three or four reference systems. Having a largenumber of reference systems becomes complex. The approach of assuring diversity by testing a few referencesystems was suggested. The G8 will address the issue of a European test lab. The objective of qualification is toallow multiple-lab testing with a high confidence on the test results. Further comments on these issues were invitedon the DSL testing e-mail list.

TEST PLANS

One of the ISWG goals is refinement of the G.lite, G.dmt, G.shdsl, and HDSL2 test plans. Test plans for G.shdsland HDSL2 were initiated at this meeting.

DSLForum00-253 (A. Pickering, BT) details BT’s physical layer ADSL test plan and test methodology. A.Pickering gave a slide presentation on this contribution (DSLForum00-301, Attachment 4). Running this test plancan take a month for a single modem. This test plan will be considered in enhancing WT-051. A. Pickering willprovide a contribution containing the .zip file with the hypertext files related to DSLForum00-253 for use in webbrowsers, and a contribution on the pass-fail criteria for the tests.

DSLForum00-270 (S. Valcourt, UNH) is a working beginning of an HDSL2 physical layer interoperability testplan; it was used in the July test event of the UNH IOL consortium on HDSL2. This was discussed in detail andaccepted as a WG document, but not as a WT.

G.SHDSL/HDSL2 TEST PLANS

DSLForum00-276 (T. Ahmed, A. Zarabi, Intel) discusses the plan for performing G.shdsl (G.991.2) interoperabilitytests between STU-C and STU-R equipment providers. It includes test cases for connection establishment, loopback, monitoring, messaging, and link tear down, and identifies open issues in need of further clarification. T.Ahmed gave a slide presentation on this contribution (DSLForum00-301, Attachment 6). It was agreed that thegauge (.x mm) of ETSI loops 4 and 5 will be specified. The issue was raised asking which conformance tests shouldbe assumed to have been performed, e.g., PSD, before running interoperability tests. It was agreed to request themost recent G.shdsl draft from the ITU, for use in developing this test plan. It was agreed that this test plan is notto be a working test, following the examples for G.dmt and G.lite test plans.

S. Valcourt (UNH) agreed to provide contributions on G.shdsl static and dynamic interoperability test suites, forconsideration as working texts on G.shdsl testing. It was agreed to list the test plan documents on the relationshipand summary of WG documents tables (see DSLForum00-301 sections 14 and 15).

WT-030, ADSL STATIC INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

The status of WT-030, ADSL (T1.413-1998) static interoperability testing (ed. B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments),was briefly reviewed and issues highlighted. WT-030 underwent editing and further review; it has been cleaned up,but one or two more meetings are expected before a straw ballot. It was agreed not to send any of the WGdocuments from this meeting to straw ballot. The current version is WT-030v9; completion is expected in firstquarter 2001.



WT-051, ADSL DYNAMIC INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

The status of WT-051, ADSL dynamic interoperability testing (revision/update of TR-029, ed. W. Picken, NationalSemiconductor) was briefly reviewed and issues highlighted. WT-051 was edited and further reviewed; it has beencleaned up. WT-051v2 is the current version. The editor was unable to attend, but he did send comments that wereincorporated into the revision resulting from the editing sessions. It was agreed not to send any of the WGdocuments from this meeting to straw ballot.

WT-052, PPP STATIC INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

The status of WT-052, PPP static interoperability testing (ed. A. Bichon, Network Equipment Technologies), wasreviewed and issues highlighted. WT-051 was edited and further reviewed; the current version is WT-052v2. A.Bichon reported that the extra RFC references mentioned at the May meeting and at the joint session with A&T WGin August were included. T. Ahmed (Intel) discussed the enhancements to DSLForum00-276 developed during theediting session. It was agreed not to send any of the WG documents from this meeting to straw ballot; completionis expected in first quarter 2001.

INTEROPERABILITY EVENTS

The following were discussed:

• Future interoperability events, including the September 18 - 22 all-vendor event, and beyond• Additions to a test suite for PPP testing; a test plan is being developed.• Expansion of the interoperability events to include interoperability testing based on the new G.shdsl/HDSL2 test

plan proposals

CES 2001 PLANNING, BROADBAND CONTENT DELIVERY

A joint session of T&I WG, ISWG, and the Marketing Trade Show Committee was held. It focused on CES 2001planning and CeBIT 2001 planning. E. Katz (DSL Forum) and S. Valcourt (UNH) gave a slide presentation on theCES 2001 staging event scheduled for December 13 - 20 (DSLForum00-301, Attachment 7). Any-to-anyinteroperability is expected for both G.lite and G.dmt, as it is for SuperComm2000. Conditions for testing werediscussed (field release code to be required by staging).

CES 2001 technical requirements, as defined by current test plans DSLForum00-082 (G.992.1 Interoperability testplan R1.3, ed. E. Seagraves, Centillium) and DSLForum00-215 (G.992.2 Interoperability test plan, v1.6, ed. B.Wiseman, Texas Instruments), tests 1 - 7 (PPP or bridged) (Optional: G.lite Fast Retrain), include:

• Test 7: 15 kft, 26 AWG, clean loop, 384/128 kbit/s• Silicon from different sources

- Demonstrating any-to-any connectivity USING FIELD RELEASE CODE as of December 13, 2000- Each consumer-available CPE capable of connecting to all DSLAMs- Minimum G.992.1 or G.992.2 to same (w/ G.hs: G.994.1)- CPE must select application that will be demonstrated

The possibility of a staging event in Europe for CeBIT 2001 was discussed. Coordination with application providerswas discussed; E. Katz agreed to provide a summary of applications proposals. For CeBIT, the fact that Annex B(G.dmt) is not included in the existing test plan (DSLForum00-082) was discussed. F. Van Der Putten (Alcatel)agreed to provide a contribution proposing optional test cases for G.dmt test plan testing support for Annex B.Possibly a quarter of the DSLAMs at CeBIT will support G.dmt Annex B. Testing of G.shdsl for CeBIT was notdiscussed in detail.

DSLForum00-207 is a liaison to the Broadband Content Delivery Forum (BCDF). It supports the BCDF andrequests establishment of a formal liaison between the two forums.

DISCUSSION , REFERENCE SYSTEMS AND QUALIFICATION

It was restated: ITU G.992.1 (G.dmt) and G.992.2 (G.lite) are the only standards to be considered in this process.

The Service Provider Council was created to obtain buy-in from the service providers so that the DSL Forum can goforward with interoperability according to their mandate. Their meeting on August 28 was just the first step in thisdirection. The upcoming Portland meeting is being seen as a key milestone in obtaining service provider supportfor:



• Consolidation around layer 3 (either single protocol stack or support intelligent adaptation)• Configuration/Provision (single VPI/VCI setting)

A request was made that progress reports be posted to one of the Forum’s exploder mailing lists. T. Starr (SBC)cautioned against companies using this as a marketing advantage. It was agreed that any company that uses theirstatus in their marketing materials and discussions will be automatically disqualified.

The DSL Forum needs to create and establish an NDA for the reference system vendors to sign.

It was reported that Virata may wish to be qualified at sub-standard rates. In response, M. Peden pointed out the needto separate compatibility from full compliance.

DSL Forum will review the testing lab at the Portland meeting as UNH’s first contract will close and will eitherrenew with them, select a new company, or both. It was noted that test house fees are posted on the web site andcan be reviewed there. Cetecom stated their willingness to be considered as the next test house. UNH will do theinitial testing. Testing at UNH will be for full compatibility to the standards G.lite and G.dmt, depending for whichcategory the systems qualify.

T. Starr (SBC) noted his pleasure to see the progress so far, and underscored the importance of the effort. Althoughcertification is not yet defined, interoperability is developing well.

G. Edmonds (SBC) asked how to move from this to certification. The buy in from the service providers is key tothis step. The DSL Forum has built the work on the standards so that the process is valid. T. Starr noted that areference is needed, and that this will lead to methods for testing and pass/fail criteria, i.e., toward certification. SBCintends to submit to the December, Portland meeting a contribution defining certification step-by-step test methodsand these pass/fail criteria; this will help to define certification.

G. Edmonds urged that the DSL Forum go “full speed ahead” towards defining certification and not wait forOpenDSL to define something. The DSL Forum wants to see OpenDSL be fully embraced and operated within theforum process.

G. Edmonds stated that he wants to get to the point where a “DSL Certification” sticker can be placed onequipment. In response, it was pointed out that the DSL Forum cannot do this, according to the terms of its charter,but it can endorse a set of test laboratories that are empowered to do this.

The question of what to do with the backup reference systems was raised. It was decided to wait one more month.

M. Peden clarified that chip set vendors who provide a packaged solution to ISPs to make PCI cards will beconsidered a commercially available product. All commercially available products will be considered.

Cetecom contributions DSLForum00-185 (Qualification program and testing reference model) and DSLForum00-267(Summary of DSLForum00-139, Concept for the ADSL qualification program), were presented. DSLForum00-267also describes the structure of a DSL qualification/Certification System and adds some considerations to answer arecent question arising from the Orlando meeting of how to support multiple labs for Interoperability testing. Inaddition, it highlights how the qualification program answers the question of test funding. The intention of thisdocument is to highlight the main benefits of such a qualification tool as providing the only road to multiple-labsand self-funded testing. The intention is to encourage the creation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) to study theapplicability of such a qualification scheme to the specific case of DSL technologies.

Copper Mountain said that multiple labs place a burden on the vendors. The suggestion was made that, to keepthing simple, only two labs be provided, one European and one U.S.

Cetecom suggested that the DSL Forum move to a model wherein a single test-head represents the equipment and allequipment is measured against the test-head. A sidebar discussion ensued on how the actual test equipment would beset up.

Virata suggested that a single golden system is not a good idea, be it a test head or a chosen system. They statedtheir view that the method presented by M. Peden is the best option. BT agreed that the three-reference systemmodel is preferred.

B. Wiseman (Texas Instruments) reminded that repeatability of testing must be possible, and that consistency mustbe maintained.



B. Wiseman asked, in response to Cetecom’s contribution, why is another SIG needed when T&IWG and G8 alreadyexist? Use the existing groups, he said, and start working.

I. Tooley (Admit) volunteered his testing expertise for defining this process.

EMERGING DSLS STUDY GROUP

The EDSLSG Chair is D. Greggains (Gorham & Partners). The EDSLSG is a study group comprised of bothmarketing and technical members. It covers all standards-based or standards-compliant DSL technologies and relatedsystem architectures that extend the xDSL domain beyond ADSL and other existing systems; it also covers thoseDSLs for which standards are currently under development. DSLForum00-217 contains the minutes of the May,Orlando meeting. DSLForum00-291 is the report of this meeting.

WT-047, ASPECTS OF VDSL EVOLUTION

DSLForum00-254 (P. Korolkiewicz Ericsson) provides a VDSL Standardization status update discussing the ETSI,ANSI and ITU progress on VDSL.

DSLForum00-225 (D. Greggains, Gorham & Partners) is a draft of a section (5.3.1) for inclusion in WT-047covering “Campus Environment.”

DSLForum00-245 (C. Van Dusen, VideoTele.com) is a draft of the generic description of video services for deliveryin VDSL environments. It includes some of the issues to be considered in acquiring, formatting, processing, anddelivering video entertainment content to the consumer. Formatted as an appendix, this contribution is intended tobe an informative addition to the body of WT-047.

EDSLSG began work to further develop WT-047, Aspects of VDSL evolution (ed. C. Storry, Alcatel), and to extendthe scope of the unapproved text, which had already been incorporated.

EDSLSG held a brainstorming session on issues outstanding and future work the Forum needs to do. EDSLSG islooking to the FS VDSL Committee to directly input thoughts and requirements to EDSLSG. The plan is tocontinue to develop the document and solicit further contributions and formal comments on the WT at the Decembermeeting. There may be a conference call on October 30, if it is needed.

FUTURE WORK/I SSUE FOR THE FORUM

Item Category PriorityDemarcation +Architecture 2 +Marketing for VDSL +Marketing for FS VDSL -Identify big holes 1 +Fill big holes +Applications and Services 3 +Services on the same pair s1Cable/cable plan characteristics 0Private wiring – home/campus 0Spectrum management s1Loop qualification/testing +Interoperability with ADSL/SHDSL 0Residential domain incl. G’way s2Business domain incl. G’way s2Bitstream unbundling s2IMA/Inverse muxing s2MIBs and configuration +I’facing with consumer products s3Provisioning +Topologies with VDSL s2Evolution beyond VDSL +Daisy chaining of DSLAMs s2



Heterogeneous deployment +Regulatory +Competition to VDSL +

Notes: + means high priority0 means no priority- means do not work on this1 and s1 refer to linked issues regarding holes in the end-to-end system2 and s2 refer to linked architectural issues3 and s3 refer to Application and Service issues

FSAN FS VDSL COMMITTEE PRESENTATION

D. Clarke (BT), Chair of the FSAN FS VDSL Committee, gave a presentation (DSLForum00-289) to around sixtyDSL Forum members. The FS (Full Service) VDSL Committee is a sub-committee of FSAN; it will focus on theFSAN band plan 998. In turn, it will likely generate a number of its own sub-committees.

An announcement was expected from Qwest (September 7) concerning their future VDSL services. The launch eventfor the FS VDSL Committee was planned for Toronto on October 11 – 13; D. Clarke hoped the DSL Forum wouldparticipate.

The intention of the FS VDSL Committee is to work closely with the DSL Forum and, where possible andbeneficial, for the two groups to pass work between one another. D. Clarke promised to provide the DSL Forumwith a list of the key architectural issues including bit rates, etc. He suggested that the inaugural Committeemeeting in Toronto could provide the DSL Forum with its main list of architectural issues and working frameworkdefining the work believed to have been done and that is still left to be done. In return, the DSL Forum agreed tomake a presentation on how it might assist the FS VDSL Committee and provide it with a list of available Forumexpertise in areas such as MIBs, interoperability work, etc. and include a formal proposal to work together.

G. Young (AdEvia), L. Humphrey (Nortel), D. Greggains (Gorham & Partners), and D. Clarke (BT) agreed to gettogether to develop this presentation.

VDSL COMPENDIUM

DSLForum00-263 (P. Korolkiewicz, Ericsson) is a proposal on how to update the VDSL Compendium (accessdirectly from the DSL Forum web front page) which was launched in August 1998. It consists of the Contents listof the Compendium, with associated comments in italics. It welcomes other ideas on how to improve theCompendium, e.g., valuable web links.

EDSLSG agreed that the Compendium requires updating and needs to integrate TR-004 (Network migration); P.Korolkiewicz (Ericsson) and K. Starnberger (Ericsson Aheadcom) agreed to undertake this jointly. It was also agreedto follow all the recommendations and ideas set out in the contribution. In particular, G. Young (AdEvia), L.Humphrey (Nortel), and D. Greggains (Gorham & Partners) will update the items “VDSL Technical Challenges” and“VDSL Rapporteurs’ Report,” from information given in D. Clarke’s FSAN presentation. D. Greggains undertookto draft updates to the FAQ section on the web site prior to circulating it to the other group members for additionsand comments.

EDSLSG agreed that the Chair should request books and article references and web links from the closing plenary.

MARKETING

N. Gebrael (Nortel) is the Marketing Chair, and J. Fausch (Alcatel) is the Vice Chair. DSLForum00-288 containsthe marketing presentation to the closing DSL Forum plenary; the following are highlights:

The DSL Service Provider Action Council plans to expand and incorporate a workshop for Operations. The DSLOverview was well attended, with over 100 members. The VoDSL, Enterprise Security, and Secure DSL NetworkArchitecture (DSLForum00-266) white papers are available; the End User/Desktop Security white paper is stillpending.

Internal communication marketing tools include a web calendar and an online working group project plan.Marketing will also be involved in the contribution process, now including working texts (WT). Marketing willattend coordinated joint meetings, and the Service Provider Action Council.



Marketing reviewed the draft on redesigning the DSLForum.org, and DSLLIFE.com web sites. In a generalbrainstorming session on additional content, the following were suggested:

• Online survey• “My Forum” personalized portal for individual members• More balanced DSL content covering all DSL versions

A proposal from a technical writer is expected.

The Deployment Council provides end user assistance through a User Guide/FAQ. It develops an industry messageto address deployment issues, and inform whether/how the forum works to resolve them. The DeploymentCouncil’s internal communication goals include:

• Gather deployment related input from groups.• Find gaps and misdirection, and discuss with specific technical and marketing group.• Prioritize issues based on valid end user requirements.• Create a living document “Master Directory” of Forum work in progress.

E-COMMERCE

A DSL Forum-sponsored DSL industry classification system, and a DSL Forum-sponsored DSL glossary have beenestablished. Liaisons are in the process of being establishing with industry players e.g., ITU, ANSI, IEEE,RosettaNet, Telcordia, as well as with industry participants. In concert with the Web Group, the DSL Forum isworking to establish an ongoing maintenance and dissemination system.

Long-term objectives are to identify those marketing hurdles that can be overcome by standardized approaches, e.g.,service availability APIs, and product and services definition sets. This work needs to be coordinated with theService Deployment Group.

The Mindshare campaign includes the following magazine ads, TV programs, and press releases:

• TV Program: “DSL Delivers” aired June 3rd, 2000• TIME Magazine: July 24, August 14, September 11, 2000• TIME DIGITAL Magazine: August through October, 2000• PEOPLE Magazine: August 28, September 25, October 16, 2000

The US campaign will continue through 2001, pending sponsorship. The European campaign received verbalsupport. A new TV program, “DSL Lifestyles,” will present ITV (Interactive TV) interviews.

Planned events and trade shows include CES 2001, CeBIT 2001, and SuperComm 2001. Proposed topics for thePortland marketing summit include auto-configuration and self install, the emerging retail model, and an industryupdate; best practice should include more detailed discussion on auto-configuration and self install.

G8 INTEROPERABILITY GROUP

M. Peden (NorthPoint Communications) is the G8 IG Chair. DSLForum00-288 contains the G8 IG presentation tothe closing DSL Forum plenary. M. Peden (NorthPoint Communications G8IG Chair) presented the G8Introduction (a review from the May meeting), hot button issues, the selection process, and who the selections are asof August 29. (DSLForum00-301, Attachments 8 and 9).

A joint session of the G8, T&I WG, and ISWG was held; DSLForum00-301, Attachment 10, contains the closingpresentation which summarizes the G8 work. A joint G8, T&I WG, ISWG session is also expected for thePortland, December meeting.

At this meeting, the G8 WG reviewed the certification survey resolutions, discussed the SuperComm summary, andreviewed the process for the test house self-nomination. They discussed OpenDSL, and noted that some G.shdslcontributions are needed, including G.dmt Annexes B and C. They discussed issues with the current plugfestprocess, as well as ways to move forward. Two contributions from Cetecom Test Laboratories Network werereviewed. See CSR Vol. 11.7, Report of DSL Forum meeting for a discussion of DSLForum00-139 (P. Cousin,A. Ehre, J. Montenot, Cetecom); it proposes a concept for the ADSL qualification program based on the existingBluetooth qualification program.



DSLForum00-071 (J. Montenot, Cetecom) suggests studying the feasibility of a certification schemeimplementation, as established in other technology communities, e.g., Bluetooth, to assess the conformity of ADSL(or xDSL) products against essential requirements of the existing standards.

WHAT IS THE G8?

Eight volunteers signed up last year to develop a long-term framework for accelerating interoperability. Theframework is standards-based, with an initial focus on G.992.2 (G.lite) and G.992.1 (G.dmt). G8 will interface tothe T&I WG, and will provide leadership to ongoing plugfest activities. G8 hopes to receive guidance from the chipset community.

The current members of G8 include M. Peden (NorthPoint), A. Kim (3Com), J. Fausch (Alcatel), S. Harris(Pulsecom), B. Wiseman (Texas Instruments), and F. Kaudel (Fluke). Two member seats (service providers aredesired) remain open. Parties interested in joining or in nominating members are invited to contact M. Peden.

THE G8 TEST HOUSE

The G8 test house provides day-to-day testing facilities and resources. It will be used for ongoing plugfests (every 6- 8 weeks), and for the staging of Forum-organized events. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) was selectedas the initial G8 test house, for one year (March 2000 - February 2001). The test house must be an activeparticipant in the DSL Forum, and must support the ongoing definition of test suites, and must participate inplugfest and staging discussions. Although the test house is currently not enabled to certify, there is somediscussion on this.

The self-nomination criteria providing equipment to the test house include:

• Principal member of DSL Forum• Product must be in service• Must support G.dmt (Annex A) and/or G.lite• Commitment to support the agreed process• Commitment to leave product in the lab for at least one year, including one reference system in one lab, with

manuals, etc.

The test house responsibilities include:

• Identification of known items not in full compliance• Bug list is open to the members of the group• Maintain a version control (HW/SW)• Support resources identified with contact information• Commitment to the rules of non-disclosure• Provide all field deployed code in the lab and available

TEST HOUSE REFERENCE SYSTEM SELECTION PROCESS

Nominations were closed August 29, 2000; disqualified companies, e.g., not a forum member, non-compliant to theselection criteria matrix, etc., will be culled from the list.

If nominees outnumber available slots, the nominees will be placed in a lottery pool. Companies will be selectedone at a time, to fill a total of twelve slots. Slots are distributed into the following four categories: three G.liteCPE slots, three G.dmt CPE slots, three G.lite DSLAM slots, and three G.dmt DSLAM slots. Companies cannotoccupy more than one slot in each of the four categories. If more than one of the same ADSL chip set is selected bythis process, then the latter of the selections is placed on an alternate list based on the order of their lottery selection.

The reference equipment is given one month to fulfill all the terms of the criteria. If it does not fulfill the terms inthat time frame, then the equipment next on the alternate list will take the place of the failed system, and will begiven one month to qualify. When the selections are made, other companies are opened up to test and becomequalified.

The following companies responded: 2Wire, 3Com, Alcatel, Cisco, Conexant, Eicon, Ericsson, Intel, Orckit, RIAS,Siemens, Texas Instruments, TI/Siemens and Virata. The lottery selection process will commence the week afterthis meeting.

Topics to be addressed by G8 in the future include:



• How to support multiple systems/test houses• Adding two new members to G8• Ongoing interop testing• Complete the review and selection of reference systems• Key: Portland Service Provider Council• Develop a service provider consensus

– Consolidation around layer 3 (either single-protocol stack or support intelligent adaptation)– Configuration/provision (single VPI/VCI setting)

• Get first reference systems to showtime (by November 3, 2000)

DSL FORUM MEETING ROSTER, AUGUST 28 - S EPTEMBER 1, 2000, DUBLIN, IRELAND

Gavin Young (AdEvia) Technical Committee ChairFrank Van Der Putten (Alcatel) Technical Committee Vice ChairMartin Jackson (Virata) Architecture and Transport ChairGreg Wetzel (Covad Communications) VoDSL ChairGreg Bathrick ( Lucent Technologies) Operations & Network Management Co-ChairPeter Adams (BT) Operations & Network Management Co-ChairFred Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) Testing & Interoperability ChairDavid Greggains (Gorham & Partners) Emerging DSLs Study Group ChairHost: Virata Ltd.

2Wire Ted Fagenson [email protected] Randy Turner [email protected] Robert Bloom [email protected] Steve Brand [email protected] Declan Campbell [email protected] Emily Cheng [email protected] Meir Dahan [email protected] Paul Deastlov [email protected] Harold Fitch [email protected] Chris Guo [email protected] Anne Kim [email protected] Tom Kinahan [email protected] Donald Linder [email protected] Robert Morales [email protected] Robert Rose [email protected] Brian Ryder [email protected] Peter Silverman [email protected] Steven Stanton [email protected] Martin Starkie [email protected] Bruce Trumbo [email protected] Calvin Wagner [email protected] Lee Waxman [email protected] Conferences International Sally Powell [email protected] Ltd Derek Gallagher [email protected] Ltd Declan Kavanagh [email protected] Telecommunications Gideon Agmon [email protected] Telecommunications Sidney Chu [email protected] Telecommunications Jacob Fainguelernt [email protected] Telecommunications Ivan Gorgeon [email protected] Telecommunications Wyatt Meek [email protected] Telecommunications Ahmad Sajadi [email protected] Telecommunications Oliver Schmidtke [email protected] Telecommunications Yuval Yehudar [email protected] Telecommunications Michael Zimmerman [email protected] Limited Mike Abbott [email protected] Limited Derek Anderson [email protected]



AdEvia Limited Cindy Southworth [email protected] Limited James Southworth [email protected] Limited Susan Southworth [email protected] Limited Gavin Young [email protected] Design Systems Keith Atwell [email protected] Everett Brooks [email protected] David Melvin [email protected] Fibre Communications Jim Brede [email protected] Fibre Communications Richard Joerger [email protected] Fibre Communications Rolf Wendt [email protected] Micro Devices Patrick Green [email protected] Power Components Nana Dankwa [email protected] Technologies Steve Bell [email protected] Technologies Rolf McClellan [email protected] Manfred Liscopad [email protected] Rajesh Abbi [email protected] Michele Boulard [email protected] Xavier de Carniere [email protected] Stan Claes [email protected] Guus Claessen [email protected] Sam D’Haeseleer [email protected] Jay Fausch [email protected] Brian Harvey [email protected] Scott Jones [email protected] Philip Nelson [email protected] Erik Person [email protected] Veerle Salden [email protected] Chuck Storry [email protected] Frank Van der Putten [email protected] Devices Dennis Chan [email protected] Devices Massoud Hadjiahmad [email protected] Devices Patrick Kusior [email protected] Devices Dennis Robinson [email protected], Inc. Raymond Momut [email protected], Inc. Jerry Venturas [email protected]&T Laboratories Scott Mollica [email protected] Sven Bachmann [email protected] Detlef Schucker [email protected] David Benini [email protected] Marcos Tzannes [email protected] Communications Nabil Damouny [email protected] Walter Mansell [email protected] Telecommunications Barbara Stark [email protected] Gateways Jim Kokal [email protected],Broadband Gateways Stacey Ramos [email protected] Yarran Lu [email protected] John Abbotts [email protected] Peter Adams [email protected] Nigel Billington [email protected] Don Clarke [email protected] Ashley Pickering [email protected] David Thorne [email protected] Chris Wilkes [email protected] Coms George ZarembaCable & Wireless Laura Cook [email protected] & Wireless Iain Dinnes [email protected] & Wireless Annika Forsstrom [email protected] Networks Dyna Vink-Ellis [email protected]



Cayman Systems Russell Parker [email protected] Systems John Stephens [email protected] Communications Syed Abbas [email protected] Communications Tom McKee [email protected] Communications Paul Stephenson [email protected] Andreas Ehre [email protected] Jean Montenot [email protected] Elidrissi Thami [email protected] Systems Peter Arberg [email protected] Systems Rajiv KapoorCisco Systems Marcus Maranhao [email protected] Systems Celite Milbrandt [email protected] Systems Justus Osude [email protected] Systems John Petrera [email protected] Systems Enzo Signore [email protected] REMtech Joe Soriano [email protected] Phillip Brownlee [email protected] Corporation Ramaiah Narla [email protected] Week Michelle Donegan [email protected] Computer Corporation Rabah Hamdi [email protected] Sciences Corporation Femi Ladega [email protected] Douglas Hacker [email protected] Marcus Scott [email protected] Jim Webster [email protected] Jeffrey Wolf [email protected] Corporation Lujack Ewell [email protected] Mountain Networks Yvonne Hildebrand [email protected] Mountain Networks John Nevius [email protected] Mountain Networks John Reister [email protected] Rafael Ben-Michael [email protected] Cable Systems Mark Pennington [email protected] Communications Benjamin Cohen [email protected] Communications James Earl [email protected] Communications Annette Kroeber Riel [email protected] Communications Greg F. Wetzel [email protected] Telecom Simon Mabong [email protected] Connection Paul Brittain [email protected] Design Communications Nick Horsley [email protected] Telekom Guenter Dannoritzer [email protected] Systems Joseph Choghi [email protected], Inc. Bryan Way [email protected] by North Peter Macaulay [email protected] Telecom Raja Gade [email protected] Telecom Scott Harris [email protected] Telecom Gigi Karmous-Edwards [email protected] Telecom Moti Morgenstern [email protected] Networks Philip Rakity [email protected] Technology Georges Ata [email protected] Technology Christophe Caullier [email protected] Technology Peter Geier [email protected] Technology Richard McGravie [email protected] Technology Ciaran O’Rourke [email protected] Technology Neil Weldon [email protected] Sean Abraham [email protected] Reg Armstrong [email protected] Louise Bannon [email protected] Eamonn Costello [email protected] John Kirwan [email protected]



Eircom Padraig MacSuibhne [email protected] Peter Maxwell [email protected] Kevin Nolan [email protected] Pat O’KeefeElement 14 John Redford [email protected] Communications Pasi Juhava [email protected] Christopher Maidment [email protected] Jan-Olof Andersson [email protected] Andreas Fischer [email protected] Lars-Olof Haster [email protected] John Hehir [email protected] Piotr Korolkiewicz [email protected] Conor Lynch [email protected] Raymond Murphy [email protected] Dermot O’Flaherty [email protected] Jan Onnegren [email protected] Ibrahim Qazzaz [email protected] Hans-Erhard Reiter [email protected] Denise StackEricsson Aheadcom Manfred Listopad [email protected] Aheadcom Franz Starnberger [email protected] Technologies Thomas Murphy [email protected] Bandwidth Sujai Chari [email protected] Bandwidth Clarke Watson [email protected] Telecom Rupert Baines [email protected] Telecom Jeremy Guard [email protected] Telecom Markus Hochenbleicher [email protected] Telecom Kai Seyboth [email protected] Communications Robert Bridge [email protected] Communications Megan Tobin [email protected] Corporation Fred Kaudel [email protected] Communications Michael Barry [email protected] Communications Simon Doody [email protected] Communications Farzin Froughi [email protected] Telecom Meriau Ivanivan [email protected] Telecom Niger Philippe [email protected] Martin Andrews [email protected] Robert Daley [email protected] Tony Hickey [email protected] David Jones [email protected] Shahbaz Rahmanian [email protected] Group Jouni Forsman [email protected] Bandwidth Paul Carew [email protected] Bandwidth Bhagvat Joshi [email protected] William Keasler [email protected] Digital Rick Brandt [email protected] & Partners, Ltd. David Greggains [email protected] Associates Brent Chapman [email protected] Rob Brenneman [email protected] Gene Carter [email protected] David Gellerman [email protected] Hilary Tomasson [email protected] Corporation Bill Rodey [email protected] Communications Reuven Segev [email protected] Robert Flanagan [email protected] Rudi Frenzel [email protected] Klaus Starnberger [email protected] Navneet Thapar [email protected]



Infineon Ingo Volkening [email protected] das Comuniacoes de Portugal Eng Joao Castro [email protected] Access David Gunning [email protected] Telecom Express Steve Chen [email protected] Telecom Express Jow Peng [email protected] Mark Abrams [email protected] Taufique Ahmed [email protected] Joey Chou [email protected] Nabil Damouny [email protected] Chris Hansen [email protected] Kevin Kahn [email protected] Kanna Krishnan [email protected] Phillip Skeba [email protected] Arun Zarabi [email protected] Enterprise Ltd. Youcef Chebani [email protected] Enterprise Ltd. Ken Laffan [email protected] Enterprise Ltd. Alan Sheehan [email protected] Engineering Consortium John Janowiak [email protected] Joe Head [email protected] Lucio D’Ascoli [email protected] Chi-Chang Tsai [email protected] Roger Yeh [email protected] Communications Steve Blasingame [email protected] Communications David Frankel [email protected] Andy Bray [email protected] Stephen Chai [email protected] Telecom Arnoud van Neerbos [email protected] Rory O’Connor [email protected] Steve Kingdom [email protected]. Philip Golden [email protected] Communications Peter Brady [email protected] Communications Martin Carroll [email protected] Communications Mark McCarville [email protected] Communications Sean O’Connor [email protected] Communications Michael O’Dwyer [email protected] Communications Tom O’Gorman [email protected] Communications Michael O’Keeffe [email protected] Communications John Shields [email protected] Communications Terence Williams [email protected] Networks S. Krogh-Nielsen [email protected] Networks Andreas Sand [email protected] Vijay Davar [email protected] Logic Steve Ellwood [email protected] Logic Phil Welsh [email protected] Technologies Randy Brown [email protected] Technologies Eric Deichstetter [email protected] Technologies Harry Mildonian, Jr. [email protected] Technologies Carl Posthuma [email protected] Communications Dino Bramanti [email protected] Communications Phong Khuu [email protected] Communications Wolfgang Kluge [email protected] Communications Mariapaola Testa [email protected] Danny Gur [email protected] Corporation David Roberts [email protected] Corporation Ken Robertson [email protected] Corporation Kelvin Steeden [email protected] Stanley Dean Witter Carson Gaspar [email protected] Pascal Cintract [email protected]



Motorola Bernard Dugerdil [email protected] Matt S. Nelson [email protected] John Wood [email protected] Paul Cohen [email protected] Baldwin Ip [email protected] Steven Kawamoto [email protected] Donovan Nak [email protected] Georgi Petkov [email protected] Tetsuya Watanabe [email protected] to Net Technologies Keith Hoult [email protected] Antony Bichon [email protected] Phil Simmons [email protected] World Konrad Buck [email protected] Level Communications Loren Dooley [email protected] Level Communications Lauren May [email protected] Level Communications Sabit Say [email protected] Communications Marc Bohbot [email protected] Software Marcille Sibbitt [email protected] Gregory Bathrick [email protected] Mary Lou Bryant [email protected] Anders Erlandsson [email protected] Mikael Johansson [email protected] Jay Lee [email protected] Arne Nylund [email protected] Harry Pendolin [email protected] Frank Shen [email protected] Jari Torkkel [email protected] Jouko Tormanen [email protected] Rune Udd [email protected] Networks Chip Mayo [email protected] Networks David Allan [email protected] Networks Nahed Alsous [email protected] Networks Lee Crawley [email protected] Networks Igor Czajkowski [email protected] Networks Marc Doucette [email protected] Networks Edward Eckert [email protected] Networks Nabil Gebrael [email protected] Networks Les Humphrey [email protected] Networks Sharyl Jones [email protected] Networks Chandler Kim [email protected] Networks Jeri Pitoniak [email protected] Networks Brett Sheppard [email protected] Networks Julien St. John Dennis [email protected] Communications Mike Borsetti [email protected] Communications Mark Peden [email protected] Corporation Osamu Inoue [email protected] Corporation Hiroshi Ishii [email protected] Corporation Yuichi Kido [email protected] Corporation Ken Moriya [email protected] Networks Ron Jeffries [email protected] Electric Industry Henri Suyderhoud [email protected] Communications Yedidia Bentolila [email protected] Communications Nigel Cole [email protected] Communications Lior Moyal [email protected] Communications Lori Prosio [email protected]. Unlimited Kristi Kosloske [email protected] Peter Calderon [email protected] Ed Landis [email protected]



Paradyne Charles Mele [email protected] Bob Scott [email protected] Emil Ghelberg [email protected] Henry Lo [email protected] Consulting Carol Friend [email protected] Sierra Duncan Bees [email protected] Communications Sally Pringle [email protected] Communications John Schmidt [email protected] Communications Richard Threadgill [email protected] Wire/Krone Dennis Cheatham [email protected] Wire/Krone Richard Gravil [email protected] Wire/Krone Colin Oakley [email protected] Wire/Krone Bob Williams [email protected] Wire/Krone Ulrich Winkler [email protected] Elaine Baxter [email protected] Paul Doyle [email protected] Sandra Flannery [email protected] Peter Wigley [email protected] Communications Dirk Radde [email protected] Systems Corporation Daniel Modzelewski [email protected] Networks David Phillips [email protected] Telecom Gerry Law [email protected] Telecom Emma Murray [email protected] Telecom Nicole Vowles [email protected] Technologies Dael Govreen-Segal [email protected] James Kwak [email protected] Lee Culver [email protected] Eugene Edmon [email protected] Anna Salguero [email protected] Tom Starr [email protected] Claire Taniguchi [email protected] Networks Rob Brown [email protected] Jurgen Anders [email protected] Robert Beeman [email protected] Gerhard Maegerl [email protected] Tel Reed Hinkel [email protected] Tel Daun Langston [email protected] Tel Mark VanZanten [email protected] Networks Marc Lavoie [email protected] Corporation Osmo Vuorenmaa [email protected] Electronics, Inc. George Bazylevsky [email protected] Communications David Ward [email protected] Communoications Stephen Courtney [email protected] Denis LaCloche [email protected] Electric Industries Kazuya Matsumoto [email protected] Electric Industries Toru Murase [email protected] Electric Industries Eiji Tomimura [email protected] Ltd Stefan Schaer [email protected] Barry Dropping [email protected] Hugh McCafferty [email protected] Communications Lior Nabat [email protected] Technologies Karen Armington [email protected] Technologies Lubomir Citkusev [email protected] Technologies Danielle Mulloy [email protected] Technologies Sandip Raval [email protected] Eduardo Tejedor [email protected] Group Nigel Beasley [email protected] Group Gordon Brown [email protected]



Telebyte Ken Schneider [email protected] Daniel Briere [email protected] Italia Concita Saracino [email protected] Austria Helmut Leopold [email protected] Joe Foster [email protected] Liam Monaghan [email protected] AB Per Stromgren [email protected] Jarmo Nieminen [email protected] Matti Reini [email protected] David Hochberg [email protected] Moshe Levy [email protected] David Migdal [email protected] Caron Tal [email protected] Ofer Zaarur [email protected] Jan Erreygers [email protected] Instruments Marcia Barnett [email protected] Instruments Dennis Gatens [email protected] Instruments Michael Hanrahan [email protected] Instruments Neil Quarmby [email protected] Instruments Ben Wiseman [email protected] Technologies Marty Borden [email protected] Technologies James Luciani [email protected] Technologies Asher Waldfogel [email protected] Technologies George Webb [email protected] Communications Rocky Flaminio [email protected] Communications Wayne Lloyd [email protected] Corporation Yasumasa Kikunaga [email protected] John Williams [email protected] Vitus Zeller [email protected] Systems Ramon Chea [email protected] of New Hampshire Scott Valcourt [email protected] Robert Ray [email protected] Michael Brusca [email protected] Gary McAninch [email protected] Randy Wynn [email protected] Yann Picard [email protected] Gate Technologies Stephen Curtin [email protected] Charles H. VanDusen [email protected] Corporation Jason Cresswell [email protected] Corporation Luke Diamond [email protected] Corporation Martin Jackson [email protected] Corporation Rob Jenkins [email protected] Corporation Frank Kostello [email protected] Corporation Bill Wike [email protected] Access Henry Brankin [email protected] Access Eddy Carroll [email protected] Access Michael Clegg [email protected] Access Steve Collins [email protected] Access Benjamin Ellis [email protected] Access John Hall [email protected] Access Garry McMullan [email protected] Access Eugene Monaghan [email protected] Access Conor O’Gorman [email protected] Access Jon Pearce [email protected] Access Mike Sangster [email protected] Access Mark Woods [email protected] Technology Nicos Kekchidis [email protected] Technology Amitabh Shah [email protected]



VoicePump Steve Ammon [email protected] Cole Erskine [email protected] John Ronk [email protected] Dennis McCarthy [email protected] Karen “KJ” Johnson [email protected] Eric Kouch [email protected] John Miller [email protected] Kevin Sievert [email protected] Daryl Tannis [email protected] David MacCallum [email protected] Les Ventimiglia [email protected] Networks Rick Hatton [email protected] Networks Dominique Rodriguez [email protected] Labs Gregor Freund [email protected]

Visit the CSR Web Pages: http://www.csrstds.comThe Web Pages include an on-line store (order subscriptions and reports), an updated Telecom AcronymDefinitions list, updated meeting schedules, a list of web sites and ftp sites as listed in all issues of CSRjournals, background material on telecom standards and CSR (the company), data sheets on both CSRtechnical journals, and more.

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW ALSO PUBLISHES:

Communications Standards Summary (ISSN 1075-5721), a quarterly publication reporting on all activeprojects and recently completed standards of the TIA’s (Telecommunications Industry Association’s) TR-committees. Authorized by TIA.

For more details visit http://www.csrstds.com. To receive a complimentary issue of either of CSR’s technicaljournals, please contact Elaine Baskin, tel +1 650 856-9018, fax +1 650 856-6591, e-mail:[email protected]



REPORT OF STUDY GROUP 15 WP2 RAPPORTEUR’S MEETINGS,SEPTEMBER 14 – 20, 2000, MUNICH, GERMANY

Q6/15, CIRCUIT MULTIPLICATION EQUIPMENT

Y. Naito (Mitsubishi Electric) is the Q6/15 Rapporteur. Q6-G-01 is the meeting agenda. Q6-G-02r1 is the listof documents. Q6-G-04 is the report of the April Q6/15 meeting. Q6-G-06r1 is the report of this meeting.Q6-G-05 is the living list for Q/15.

The next Q6/15 experts meeting is scheduled for January 31 - February 2, 2001 in Geneva, just before the nextSG15 meeting. The objective of the next meeting is to finalize the draft Recommendations G.768 and I.733, towardDetermination at the following SG15 meeting.

G.768 (8K DCME)

Q6-D-01 is the G.768 Draft 3, Digital circuit multiplication equipment using 8 kbit/s CS-ACELP, digital speechinterpolation (DSI) and facsimile demodulation/ remodulation. It is an extension to ITU-T Recommendations G.763(Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment Using 32 kbit/s ADPCM and Digital Speech Interpolation) and G.766(Facsimile Demodulation/ Remodulation for DCME), as it specifies the deviations of the 8 kbit/s DCME fromG.763.

A clarification of the values of processing delay adjustment in Draft 3 of G.768 was requested. The values indicatedare for typical implementations and may vary depending on the real implementation. Regardless, the algorithmicprocessing time is different among the different types of speech coding algorithms; thus, the need for delayadjustment. Mitsubishi promised to check the typical values again and report the results at the next occasion.Wording will be added in the appropriate part of the text to express that the values are for a typical implementation.

Q6-D-02 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) reports the results of the G.763 channel assignment simulation, andderives from these results the capacity required for the Control Channel. It includes figures to show these results.Based on these results, it was agreed that 8 messages/DCME-frame is enough to cover up to 620 ITs (20 PG x 31time slots). It was also agreed, based on the results of the simulation (Figure 1-a), to increase the maximum numberof Ics to 620. It was confirmed that DSI pool with up to about 230 ITs can be accommodated with 4messages/DCME-frame (Figure 1g).

It was confirmed that although the threshold to select a single assignment message (AM, 4 messages/DCME-frame,G.768) or double AM (8 messages/DCME-frame, G.768) is explained in the unit of Bearer Time slot (64 kbit/s) inRecommendation G.767, the threshold shall be expressed instead in the unit of IT channel, first because the statuschange of IT is the major trigger for requiring message generation, and second because it will be more appropriate toexpress the threshold in IT numbers considering the use of two bearer streams. Mitsubishi agreed to submit theguidance for message channel capacity selection by the next experts meeting. The maximum number of messagesrequired to be generated within a single DCME is currently assumed to be about 20; this will be clarified when thethreshold becomes available.

Q6-D-03 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the IT/BC definitions for G.768 DCME. The IT numbering andBC numbering plans were agreed. The max. IT number and max. Normal BC number shall be 620 and 244,respectively, and the overload channel BC numbers shall range from 256 to 316.

Q6-D-04 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the structure of DCME control channel messages; this wasagreed. 4 messages/DCME-frame can be accommodated by a 4-bit control channel, and an additional 4 messages/DCME-frame can be accommodated by additional 2 bearer bits. This proposal defines detailed bit allocation for 4-message and 8-message transmission, and for optional transmission of IT-related signaling information for 8 ITs and16 ITs in USM.

Q6-D-05 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the bearer frame structure for G.768 DCME; this was agreed.The normal BC numbering will start from “BC 1” in case the 4-bit control channel is used, but it will start from“BC 3” in case 6-bit CC (control channel) is used. The first DSI pool shall start from TS1, and the last shall beterminated at the last TS (TS31 for 2048 kbit/s bearer or TS24 for 1544 kbit/s bearer). The boundary of DSI poolsshall coincide with 64 kbit/s channel boundary.

Q6-D-06r1 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes DCME frame/sub-frame and multi-frame structures in Rec.G.768; this was agreed. It defines the multi-frame cycle of 180 msec, together with the timing relationship between



PCME frame, DCME sub-frame, DCME frame, and DCME multi-frame. It also defines the detailed bit allocationfor asynchronous data word.

Q6-D-07r1 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the DCME unique words to be used in G.768; this wasagreed. A 10-bit sequence and its conjugate sequence will be used for synchronizations.

Q6-D-08 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the text for the details of FEC functions for assignmentmessages (control channel message protection schemes); this was agreed. BCH (63, 45) error correction scheme,which was used in Recommendation G.767, will be used.

Q6-D-09 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes adoption of a new statistic measurement, “Bearer Occupancy,”for G.768 DCME; this was agreed. This new statistic parameter indicates the percentage of bearer channel occupiedby active traffic.

Q6-D-10r2 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) re-proposes synchronous reset of the G.729 encoder and correspondingdecoder in a G.768 DCME pair, and explains which parameters and buffer are influenced by synchronous reset. Thiswas proposed but not agreed at last SG15 meeting. Q6-D-10r2 points out the need for synchronous reset betweena G.728 encoder and a corresponding decoder in Recommendation G.767. It also proposes that the same synchronousreset procedure be included in I.733 VAME. Unfortunately, it offered no explanation for the reservation on this issueexpressed at the last meeting.

Background: In G.768 DCME, G.729 codecs will be assigned to the relevant trunk channel only when the speechsignal is active, and not always assigned to the trunk channel when it becomes silent. Only a limited number ofcodecs are implemented for a DCME trunk channel pool and the assignments are subject to competition. Thesituation is the same for G.728 codecs used in G.767 DCME. Also in I.733 VAME, one to one relationshipsbetween the encoders and decoders cannot be expected throughout the call.

Q6-G-07 is a liaison to WP3/SG16 asking their guidance on the usage of synchronous reset when G.728 andG.729 codecs are used in DCME and VAME.

I.733, VAME

Q6-V-01 is the I.733 Draft 3, Voice cell assembly/ disassembly compression equipment.

Q6-V-02 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the use of G.728 (12.8/9.6 kbit/s) and G.729 (6.4 kbit/s)coding schemes, in addition to those already listed in I.733 draft 3, for the audio services in I.733 VAME. It wasrecognized that the use of these lower-bit-rate extension coding schemes will be useful if the ATM bearer shaping isintroduced in I.733 VAME. The addition of these three speech coding schemes to draft I.733 was agreed.

Q6-V-03 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes the profiles of the voice and voice band codecs to be used inI.733 VAME. One profile supports only the generic SID (Silence Insertion Descriptor) for all speech codecs, andanother supports G.729 SID. Two proposed profiles were agreed to be included in draft I.733, with an additionalnote to the second profile table clarifying that G.729 SID is applied only to the G.729 encoding scheme. Thepossibility of using subsets of these two profiles was suggested. An additional proposal on this aspect wassolicited.

IP-CME

Q6-I-01 (H. Yamada, KDD) provides four network reference cases and three network scenarios in which IP-CMEswere applied at the Uruguay meeting (Q6/15 WD-11). The consensus was that there would be a network scenario forthe network connection, Case 1; both of the IP-CMEs were connected with SCN switches, which should be pursuedin this IP-CME study. The present contribution provides a network reference model based on the consensus. It alsoproposes examples of a functional model of the IP-CME for preparation of the draft text for the RecommendationG.ipcme. A suggestion was made to change the notation of SW in Figure 2 to PSTN SW; this was accepted byKDD. A suggestion was also made to change the wording of “rescheduling” as appropriate to reflect the intention ofrescheduling payload size and/or multiplexing timing; KDD agreed to consider this for the next draft.

Q6-I-02 (H. Yamada, KDD) proposes an IP packet structure with short packets for IP-CME to include in the draftRecommendation G.ipcme. In this structure, multiple voice streams can share an RTP packet payload, and thosestreams are multiplexed on a coded voice frame or samples basis. They show an example of the IP packet structurewith short packets whose short packet header is set to be 2-byte or 4-byte. Evaluation of the need for an errorprotection scheme for header information was suggested; KDD agreed to this.



Q6-I-03 (H. Yamada, KDD) presents four distinctive multiplexing algorithms to include in draft RecommendationG.ipcme:

• Triggering by fixed payload length threshold• Triggering by dynamic payload length threshold• Triggering by timer• Combined use of triggering by a fixed payload length threshold and by a periodic timer

Several participants suggested that the figures explaining different triggering cases be modified to make thedifferences between the cases more apparent, e.g., if appropriate, change the width or height of the shaded boxes torepresent the volume of the instantaneous traffic. KDD agreed to take this suggestion into account. It was furthersuggested to draft a first baseline document on this issue; KDD agreed to this.

The G.ipcme editor will start drafting the baseline document for G.ipcme based on these three contributions; the textwill be available before the next Q6/15 experts meeting.

Q7/15, NETWORK ECHO CONTROL AND INTERACTION OF ECHO CONTROLLERS ANDNETWORK EQUIPMENT

R. Reeves (BT) is the Q7/15 rapporteur. MUN7-23R is the report of this meeting. MUN7-1R1 is the agenda.MUN7-4 is Q7/15 meeting report for the SG15 April meeting. MUN7-2R5 is the document list.

G.168 IMPLEMENTERS GUIDE

MUN7-5R3 is Draft E of the Implementers Guide for Recommendation G.168 (Digital network echo cancellers); itincludes corrections to Test 7 (stability, MUN7-8R1), Test 8 (MUN7-20), and Figure 7 (the alternate echo pathmodel configuration for testing echo cancellers, MUN7-10).

RECOMMENDATION G.168 (2002)

The following changes to G.168 (2000) were agreed:

Annex D, Echo-path models for testing of speech echo cancelers, was revised; MUN7-21 contains the modifiedtext, with the additional modifications:

• At the end of section D.1, the following sentence was added:“Only test 9 uses white noise as an input signal.”

• The title of the third column of Table D1-A should be: “Minimum ERL for CSS (dB)”• The title of the third column of Table D1-B should be: “Minimum ERL for tones (dB)”

The following new paragraph was added at the end of section 6.4.2.3:“To ensure that the magnitude response of the echo path g(k) does not exceed 0dB over the frequency range ofsome of the models in Annex D, the minimum ERL values must be greater than 6dB. See Annex D for the exactminimum ERL value for each model. Note that the minimum ERL values provided in Annex D override therequirement of ERL ≥ 6dB given in the following tests, if there is a conflict between the two.”

In section 6.4.2.9 Test No 9 - Comfort noise test, the ERL value was changed from 8 dB to 12 dB, so that the testmay be performed with all 8 g(k) models given in Annex D. Previously, models m7 and m8 would have beenimpossible to use with an ERL of 8 dB without some part of the frequency response exceeding 0 dB.

The entire text of Test 13 in section 6.4.4.1 (Performance with ITU-T low bit rate coders in echo path) was deletedand replaced with the text and figure in MUN7-22R1 (R. Reeves, Rapporteur). This test was left optional, sincethe type of codecs tested is left up to the user; it is marked “for further study” since it still requires verification.

MUN7-11R2 (N. Johansson, Telia Research), describes the results of ERL measurements performed in ninedifferent European countries using an in-service non-intrusive measurement device (INMD, Table 1, below).



Country Belg ium Denmark Finland France Germany GreatBritain

Norway Poland Sweden

ERL (mean)[dB]

25,4 22,1 25,7 22,1 28,7 27,6 27,0 21,8 21,6

std dev [dB] 5,3 5,3 6,0 6,2 5,7 5,2 5,0 5,0 4,2N o . o f c a l l s 45 1416 328 60 517 192 321 146 1416

Table 1: Summary of ERL measurements; mean ERL (including network planning losses),standard deviation and number of calls measured for each country respectively.

It was not agreed to include these results into Appendix II of G.168 (2002), but the information was felt to be veryuseful, so it was suggested that it be submitted as a white contribution to the next meeting.

Two contributions were presented on measurements of echo cancelers in tandem (Test 11). MUN7-16 (R.Rabipour, D. Ho, Nortel) presents the theoretical performance of two identical echo cancelers in tandem when theNLPs (nonlinear processors) are disabled. It concludes in general that the tandem of echo cancellers decreases theoverall convergence speed and increase residue echo level. MUN7-15 (G. Keratiotis, DSPG) describes somepractical measurements on commercial echo cancelers. It shows that the performance of the FE-EC (far end - echocanceller), in both objective and subjective terms, is affected by the operation of the NE-EC (near end - echocanceller). In the case where the echo path capacity of the NE-EC is exceeded, the performance of the FE-EC issignificantly affected, resulting in poor quality of the received signal. No text was added to the tandem echo cancelertest at this meeting, but it was hoped that the contributions will stimulate thought for future development of thistest.

MUN7-7R2 (H. Kullmann, Deutsche Telekom) proposes supplements to section I.8.5.1 of G.168, Subjective andobjective echo canceler testing - fundamentals, based on D.699© to the previous meeting. These were agreed.

All of the above changes were included in draft 2 of G.168 (2002) available at the close of the meeting.

NEW VOICE ENHANCEMENT DEVICE (VED) RECOMMENDATION

The following contributions were presented as background information for the development of a newRecommendation covering voice enhancement devices (VEDs) in mobile networks. It was agreed that the job of aVED is significantly different from that of a conventional network echo canceler as defined in G.168, and that aseparate Recommendation is necessary.

MUN7-12 (A. Perry, Lucent) discusses acoustic echo. Unfortunately, many cell phone vendors do not complywith official standards requiring adequate isolation between the receiver and the microphone of the digital mobilephone, and acoustic echo has become a concern for the wireless service providers. The acoustic echo problem ismuch more evident in the case of digital wireless due to the long processing delay (>200ms round-trip) introduced bythe speech compression techniques and the non-linearities introduced by these algorithms. Acoustic echo is anintermittent phenomenon. It shows up in many digital wireless communication sessions, but is absent in manyothers. While primary vendors provide acoustic echo control capabilities as part of their echo cancellation offerings,the effectiveness of these solutions varies from one implementation to another. MUN7-12 identifies three types ofprobable acoustic error, and proposes that a new wireless EC standard include information that will reduce theprobability of generating such errors.

MUN7-13 (A. Perry, Lucent) discusses the purpose and architecture of tandem free operations (TFO). TFO (a.k.a.vocoder bypass) is an emerging voice quality standard designed for eliminating unnecessary transcoding operations onmobile-to-mobile calls. Advances in cell phone technology may transform TFO into an optional feature triggered byusers in real-time. It could provide users with a choice between TFO and signal processed enhancements.Technological innovations could grant users with an optional push-button feature (on their phone), sending a signalto the MSC and requesting the disabling of TFO and enabling of signal processed features such as Noise Reduction,Automatic Level Control, Noise Compensation, or Acoustic Echo Control. Consequently, users may exercise morereal-time control over the quality of their mobile session. They would opt for signal processed features when thesurrounding environment is noisy, or when they perceive level incompatibilities or in the presence of acoustic echo.They would elect to choose TFO when the environment is serene, the level seems proper, and there is no acousticecho. This contribution proposes that the new wireless EC standard address the capability of handling the TFOmessages.



MUN7-14 (A. Perry, Lucent) is a tutorial paper. It discusses the latest network architectures supporting mobile-to-mobile voice enhancements, and the latest data communication applications. Such new network architectures requirea new species of stand-alone echo canceller products capable, among other things, of operating on the GSM A-Interface while supporting enhanced signal processing features. In the new Wireless standard, the recommendationshould state that when an Echo Canceller is placed on the A-interface, it must disable when detecting the IWFmessages. Furthermore, the EC should not degrade the voice signal if equipped in a back-to-back arrangement. Inaddition, the placement of the signal processing features should be addressed.

N. Dennis (Lucent) was appointed editor of this new Recommendation. MUN7-24R1 contains the draft scopewhich notes that the new Recommendation will not define a standard algorithm.

The Rapporteur agreed to investigate which groups in other standards organizations, e.g., ETSI, CTIA, 3GPP, areperforming work that is relevant to this new Recommendation. It was agreed that a joint meeting with these groupsmay be useful, once work on this new Recommendation is underway.

EDH ISSUES

Participants were encouraged to use the ITU TIES informal ftp area, together with the Q7/15 email exploder, forinterim correspondence work. Since the last meeting, a WEB discussion board has also been set up:http://www.skene.org/q7.

Q21/15, FUNCTIONALITY AND INTERFACE SPECIFICATIONS FOR GSTN TRANSPORT NETWORKEQUIPMENT FOR INTERCONNECTING GSTN AND IP NETWORKS (TIGIN)

The Q21/15 Rapporteur is J. Skene (Tellabs). WD21-1 is the Q21/15 meeting agenda. WD21-3R2 is the list ofattendees. WD21-2R1 is the list of documents. WD21-4 is the meeting report of the April 2000 Geneva meetingof Q21/15. WD21-21 is the report of this meeting. WD21-5 is the Q21/15 work plan; it was accepted withoutchange.

The Rapporteur presented WD21-6, EDH Issues for Q21/15. A mirror site that does not require a TIES account isavailable at: ftp://tellabs_itu:[email protected] .com/tellabs_itu/ITUMirror/SG15/wp2/q21/q21_index .htm. Theelectronic discussion site is also available to all at: http://skene.org/q21. This discussion group allows participantsto contribute to any of the areas of work carried out by Q21/15.

LIAISONS

WD21-7 is a liaison from Q23/12 on speech packet size and delay, in response to the Q21/15 liaison (APC-1817 , CSR Vol. 11.6) on a method for deciding on codec type and packet size. ITU-T SG12 reported that withrespect to delay values for combination of codec and number of speech frames per packet, they have just completedrevisions to Recommendation G.114 (One-way transmission time). Appendix I/G.114 includes many tables thataddress this issue. Also attached to WD21-7 is D.117 to SG12 which may useful in this context. Section 7.4.1.1in Recommendation G.177 provides general information on how to calculate delay for a given combination of codecand packetization strategy. The delay associated with codec processing and packetization should be kept as short aspossible. To accomplish this objective when G.729 or G.729A is used, two frames per packet should be consideredas the maximum packet size. Similarly, G.711 may be used with packet sizes of 10 ms (80 frames) or 20 ms (160frames) to achieve this objective. Finally, when G.723.1 is used, only one frame should be included in each packet.The 30 ms frame size of G.723.1 results in speech collection and coding delay of at least 60 ms, contributing todifficulty of interactive communications.

Q21/15 decided to include the last paragraph of page 1 into section 3.3.1 of draft Recommendation G.799.1. Inaddition, the sentence “Packet size should be matched to codec frame length.” was added. A question was raised onthe figure on the last page of D.117 which indicates an IP overhead of 46 bytes. A comment was made that thiswould normally be 40 bytes. The Rapporteur will contact the source of the document to clarify this discrepancy.

WD21-10 is a liaison from SG16 in response to the Q21/15 liaison (APC-1749 , CSR Vol. 11.6) requestinginformation and guidance on deployment and control of echo cancelers used in association with voice over IPconnections. Q13-14/16 notes that H.248 can be used to provide the necessary echo cancellation control, and therequired capability is included as part of the TDM package in H.248 Annex E section E.13. They also note thatQ9/11 is modifying the detail of H.248 control of off-board signal processing equipment (Q21 case 2). They adviseof an architectural refinement which may arise in H.323 operation: the possibility that H.248 messages are originatedby the H.323 Gatekeeper and passed to the H.323 Gateway control (MGC) function for onward transmission to the



H.323 Gateway media gateway (MG) function. A precedent for such an architecture has been set with H.323 AnnexL (Stimulus Signaling).

The diagram on page 2 of WD21-10 shows the Q.115 logic process residing in the H.323 gatekeeper, whereas inG.799.1 this function is shown as being in the MGC. Q21/15 agreed to send a liaison to SG13 (WD21-18) toseek their advice on where this function should be located. Q21/15 is not concerned with where Q.115 is located,but would like to properly illustrate it in their documentation.

WD21-11 is a liaison from Q13/16 in response to the Q21/15 liaison (APC-1750 , CSR Vol. 11.6) requestinginformation and guidance on the means of avoiding tandem speech coding in TIGIN gateways. It was agreed toinclude the sentences “It is recommended that H.245 be used for codec negotiation. It is highly recommended that asingle coder pair be used end-to-end.” into section 3.3.1 of G.799.1.

WD21-12 is a liaison from Q13/16 in response to a liaison (APC-1817 , CSR Vol. 11.6) on a method fordeciding on codec type and packet size. The point was made that Q21/15 had previously removed a reference to IETFRFC-1890 (RTF profile for audio and video conferences with minimal control). Q21/15 agreed to send a liaison(WD21-20r1) back to Q13/16, forwarding to them information received from SG12 on packet size. It was furtheragreed to send a liaison to SG13 (WD21-19) asking for guidance on the location of logic for negotiating packetsize.

G.799.1

WD21-8 (Q21/15 Rapporteur) is the draft outline of new Recommendation G.799.1 v.3.4, Functionality andinterface specifications for GSTN transport network equipment for interconnecting GSTN and IP networks; itrepresents the output of the April, Geneva meeting.

WD21-9 is the living list for continued work of Q21/15. The main points of this list have been entered on theQ21/15 discussion site as independent threads.

WD21-13 (T. Trump, Ericsson) addresses support to codecs used in wireless systems. It was agreed to add thefollowing sentences to G.799.1 section 4.1.2 after the term (G.729): “As a minimum, a G.799.1 gateway shouldinclude a G.711 codec. In order to allow tandem coder avoidance for calls to and from cellular networks, the gatewayshould optionally include speech codecs commonly used in cellular networks. The included codecs should be thoseused in the specific cellular network to which the gateway is directly attached.”

WD21-14 (A. Tulai, Mitel) proposes additional text for Section 3.3.1, Per Call Control (PCC). This proposedtext was included in section 3.3.1 after the words “Packet size selection.” This text is as follows:“Upon completion of a call, as specified in H.248, TIGIN should be capable of supplying, upon request, statisticsrelated to the call, for example:

• Number of packets sent• Number of octets sent• Number of packets received• Number of octets received• Inter-arrival jitter

Mechanisms for supporting the above features are for further study. Selection of these mechanisms will affect voicequality. See Sections 4.1 and 4.3 for more information on this topic.”

WD21-15 (A. Tulai, Mitel) proposes text for G.799.1 Section 3.3.2, Signaling over IP TIGIN. This text wasaccepted. The sentence, “A framework architecture for signaling transport over IP networks may be found in IETFRFC 2719 (Informational: Framework architecture for signaling transport).” was added after the heading “SignalingOver IP.”

WD21-16 (A. Tulai, Mitel) proposes text for G.799.1 Section 4.4, Clock recovery and synchronization; it wasaccepted as new text, with the following changes:

• The term Circuit Switched Networks was changed to Switched Circuit Networks, with the abbreviation SCN.• The sentence “Methods of determining the resolution of the time stamp are for future study.” was added after the

words “(see RFC 1889).”• Only references to G.813 (Timing characteristics of SDH equipment slave clocks) and RFC 1889 (Real Time

Protocol) were retained. A reference to IETF RFC-2833 (RTP payload for DTMF and telephony signals) wasadded.



• The note at the end of the contribution was retained, but is preceded by the sentence: “The following is forinformation purposes only.”

• The words “IETF RFC2833” were inserted before the text “RTP Payload …”

WD21-17 (A. Tulai, Mitel) proposes additional functionality for TIGIN. It was agreed not to accept the textproposed in this contribution, however it was agreed to insert a new section titled “Conference Bridging” afterSection 4.3. Text was added to this new section as follows: “A TIGIN gateway is not required to support conferencebridging.” In addition, six minor changes to G.799.1 were agreed.

WP2/15 RAPPORTEURS PARTIAL MEETING ROSTER, SEPTEMBER 14 – 20, 2000, MUNICH,GERMANY

Yushi Naito, Mitsubishi Electric Q6/15 RapporteurBob Reeves, BT Q7/15 RapporteurJerry Skene, Tellabs Q21/15 RapporteurHosts: Deutsche Telekom and Alcatel

Alcatel Hans J. Matt [email protected] Bob Reeves [email protected] Telekom Harald Kullmann [email protected] Communications Corporation Tom Oshidari [email protected] radio Systems AB Tonu Trump [email protected] Telecom-FTR&D Valérie Turbin [email protected] Hideaki Yamada [email protected] Technologies Neil Dennis [email protected] Robert Born [email protected] Yushi Naito [email protected] Michael Kirk [email protected] Dominic K. C. Ho [email protected] research AB Niklas Johansson [email protected] Jerry Skene [email protected] Maurice Givens [email protected] Networks Yimin Zhang [email protected]



REPORT OF ETSI TIPHON MEETING #20, SEPTEMBER 18 – 22, 2000,VIENNA, AUSTRIA

TIPHON 20 was chaired by H. Schink (Siemens). 20TD-001r3 is the agenda. 20TD-025 is the report of thismeeting. 19TD-025 is the report of TIPHON 19. 20TD-022 is the detailed plan of the TIPHON work program.20TD-023 is the summary of the project plan. 20TD-002 is the document list.

The Chair reminded all participants of ETSI’s IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) policy, and invited announcementof IPRs of relevance to TIPHON. One announcement was received during the meeting; it will be processed byETSI’s legal advisor.

The goals of this meeting are given in the agenda and in the summary of the project plan. The main goals of themeeting consisted in approving several documents; achievements of the meeting and expected milestones to bereached were as follows:

Del iverables TIPHON 20Goals

Vers ion No. &Achievements

TIPHONApproval

RELEASE 3 deliverables

DTR-00002 Release definition; Releases 3 and 4 Stable Draft YESv.0.0.4

TIPHON 21

DTR-01004.1 Service and network management requirements Stable Draft YESv.0.0.4

TIPHON 21

DTR-01006 Requirements for the IP transport plane Stable Draft YESv.0.2.0

TIPHON 22

DTR-01008 Requirements definition study; Scope and requirements fora simple call

WG Approval NOv.0.2.0

TIPHON 20

DTS-01009 Scope and requirements for a simple call Stable Draft YESv.0.1.0

TIPHON 21

DTS-01010 Scope and requirements for QoS management in TIPHONsystems

Stable Draft YESv.0.1.0

TIPHON 24

DTS-01011 Requirements for alarm reporting in TIPHON systems First Text YESv.0.1.0

TIPHON 21

DTR-01012 Requirements definition study; Firewalls and inter-domainrouting of VoIP

WG Approval NOv.0.1.0

TIPHON 21

DTS-02007 Application of TIPHON functional architecture for inter-domain services

Stable Draft NOv.0.3.3

TIPHON 22

RTS-02009 TIPHON Release 3 network architecture and referenceconfiguration interim WG2 meeting

First Text YESv.0.0.0

DTS-03011 Signaling for basic calls and inter-domain calls betweenan H.323 terminal and a terminal in a switched-circuitnetwork (SCN); Phase III

TIPHONApproval

YESV1.3.4

TIPHON 20

DTS-03014.2 Network management framework WG Approval YESv.0.0.2

TIPHON 21

DTS-03016 Protocol framework WG Approval NOv.0.2.1

TIPHON 21

DTS-03017 Implementation of TIPHON architecture using H.323 Stable Draft NO

DTS-03019 Implementation of TIPHON architecture using H.248 Stable Draft NOv.0.1.0

DTS-05003 A signaling mechanism for achieving TIPHON quality ofservice (QoS) levels

WG5Approval

NOV9.0.3

TIPHON 20

DTS-05008 Quality of service (QoS) measurement methodologies inTIPHON systems

TIPHONApproval

YES deferred toTIPHON 20

DTS-05010 Quality of service (QoS) determine delivered quality First Text NOno draft available

TIPHON 21

DTR-05011 Design guide for elements of a TIPHON connection froman end-to-end speech transmission performance point ofview

TIPHONApproval

YES TIPHON 20

RTS-05012 End to end quality of service in TIPHON systems;definition of quality of service (QoS) classes

First Text NOno draft available

TIPHON 22



RTR-05013 End-to-end quality of service in TIPHON systems; Actualmeasurements of network and terminal characteristics andperformance parameters in TIPHON networks and theirinfluence on voice quality


TIPHON 22

DTS-06011 PICS for TIPHON terminals TIPHONApproval

YESv.0.1.4

TIPHON 20

DTS-06014 Security test scenarios postponed, but still part of R3 Stable Draft NOv.0.0.1

TIPHON 23

RTS-06015 Test specifications; Version 4 depends on WI-3011, to bepostponed

Stable Draft NOno draft available

TIPHON 23

DTS-06016-1 Revision/update of H.225.0 PICS for terminal, gatekeeperand gateway

First Text YES0.2.0

TIPHON 23

DTS-06016-2 H.225.0 Conformance test specifications; Test suitestructure (TSS) and Test purposes (TP) for terminal,gatekeeper and gateway

Stable Draft NO0.2.0

TIPHON 23

DTS-06016-3 H.225.0 Conformance test specifications; Abstract testsuite (ATS) and PIXIT proforma for terminal, gatekeeperand gateway

First Text YESv.0.0.0

TIPHON 23

DTS-06017 PICS proforma for the support of ITU-T RecommendationH.248 (only on H.323 part, a revision of this documentwill include the SIP part of H.248)

Stable Draft NOv.0.3.0

TIPHON 23

DTR-08002 Threat analysis WG8Approval

NOv.0.1.6

TIPHON 21

DTR-08003 Lawful interception; Internal LI interface WG8Approval

NO TIPHON 20

RTS-08004 Interoperable security profiles; Version 2 Stable draft YESv.2.0.0

TIPHON 21

RELEASE 4 deliverables

DTR-01005 SIP & H.323 interworking; Requirements Stable Draft YESv.0.1.0

TIPHON 21

DTS-03009 To be stopped First Text STOPPED TIPHON 21

DTS-03018 Implementation of TIPHON architecture using SIP Stable Draft NOv.0.0.3

DTR-04008 Requirements definition for the real time aspects of aresolution service

Stable Draft ?v.0.0.2

TIPHON 23

RTR-05014 Design guide for elements of TIPHON connection fromend-to-end speech transmission performance point of view


DTR-07002 Investigation of synergies and common requirementsbetween TIPHON networks and wireless systems as theyare currently being developed by other bodies

Stable draft YESv.0.0.3

TIPHON 23

DTS-07003 Mobility and access to wireless systems; Extensions torequirements, architecture, and protocols

Stable Draft YESv.0.6.1

TIPHON 23

All new work items of the last meeting were approved (WI-2009, -3017, -3018, -3019, and -5014). All approveddocuments received editorial amendment according to the ETSI rules.

MARKETING ACTIVITIES

The Chair gave a brief report on the main marketing activities, which include:

• The H.323 Implementers conference in Paris, October 2000• The QoS conference in London• The IIR conference in Lisbon, Portugal

UPDATE ON RELATED GROUPS

3GPP

T. Hatala (Motorola) reported that cooperation with 3GPP has started in a few areas and was significantly enhancedin a joint meeting in September. 20TD-044 contains a discussion of the issue (see below, reports of WGs 2 and 7).The presentation on the TIPHON work was well received by 3GPP SA2. QoS and Architecture were proposed aspossible areas of cooperation.



Since 3GPP is under great pressure to finalize their documents, any cooperation must not disturb the process, so afull alignment may not be practical at this time. A management meeting between TIPHON and 3GPP would be anappropriate next step for TIPHON; the Chair will approach 3GPP accordingly.

IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

M. Holdrege (ipVerse) reported that significant progress has been made in several areas within the IETF that have adirect impact on TIPHON; specifically:

• DIAMETER was chosen as a protocol for AAA. The DIAMETER protocol is used for authentication,authorization and accounting (AAA) for mobile-IP. DIAMETER is an expansion of the earlier RADIUS AAAprotocol.

• Several extensions for SIP have been developed, e.g., for message waiting• A series of drafts has been finalized for mobile IP to allow wireless extensions• The SIP/INAP interworking in SIN was discussed jointly with the ITU-T• Most of the work for Megacop was approved in cooperation with ITU-T• International emergency preference schemes were discussed in IECS

TTT Services

H. Wermescher (Telekom Austria/Infonova) reported that the Trans European Network Telecom (TTT) project hasmade good progress. They contributed seven documents to TIPHON (20TD-071). The first trial phase has ended.TTT Services is now attempting to establish an MoU as a framework for a specific commitment to deploy, inaccordance with TIPHON specifications, pre-commercial IP telephony services, networks, and gateways to the publicswitched telephone networks by November 22, 2000, and the opening of a global commercial service by mid-2001.They have contacted the European Commission to ask for support of their initiative to establish this MoU (20TD-073), and they have offered TIPHON the option of co-signing the request.

The TIPHON Chair expressed his support for this proposal, and it was discussed in the plenary. BT asked to bedisassociated from the TTT Services and their proposed MoU; it is their view that such MoUs have in the past beenanti-competitive. It was agreed that BT’s concern is valid. The letter to the EC was re-drafted to take this concerninto account. Further, BT and Cable & Wireless Communications noted that SG2 might see a problem in theassignment of the NDC (National destination code, ITU) for an extended trial with an increased number of users.They proposed that the responsibility for the NDC should remain with the ITU and the day-to-day operation couldpossibly be given to a neutral agency.

Finally, noting BT’s continuing concerns over the proposals for numbering, TIPHON 20 agreed to a signature of theletter to the EC by the TIPHON Chair. The latest version of the letter is 20TD-084r1.

IMTC (International Multimedia Teleconferencing Consortium)

R. Brennan (GRIC Communications) reported that IMTC’s main activity with impact to TIPHON is aHit!(Applications on Harmonized Interoperable IP Telephony, an IMTC committee), which produces a document that iswell aligned with WI-1005, SIP and H.323 interworking requirements, via individual contributions and the furtheruse of OSP.

20TD-085 provides the aHit! document, Interoperability Requirements for Billing and Settlement Issue 1 (IMTC-103-2000) April, 2000. Service Providers have a choice of implementing ETSI-TIPHON OSP (Open SettlementProtocol) and/or ITU-T H.225 Annex G based protocol for VoIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) applications. Inorder for services to work in an environment that encompasses both protocols, as for example in an end-to-endservice that involves connectivities among multiple SPs, an inter-working function must be available. Thisdocument addresses SP to SP interoperability when dealing with exchange of inter-domain pricing, authorization andsettlement information between different SPs using OSP and Annex G. Mapping messages between the twoprotocols is a key function of such interoperability. Furthermore, such mapping must be bi-directional. From anarchitecture perspective, there are several options of where this functionality should exist. The scope of thisdocument is limited to identifying these options, and leaving implementation details to the vendor community.

TTC

H. Sunaga (TTC) reported that the TTC (Telecommunication Technology Committee) is the Japanese regionalstandardization organization for telecommunication. Since TTC made the MoU with ETSI last year, TTC membershave participated in each TIPHON meeting. TTC’s standardization plan for the near future is to issue Technical



Documents (TD) by translating TIPHON documents. TTC’s TDs are a kind of technical report that, with someenhancements, can later become standards.

The following documents were chosen because they were deemed suitable to provide a basis for initial Japanesepublic VoIP services:

• DTS-03011 (Signaling)• DTS-04001 (Naming and addressing)• DTS-05008 (QoS measurement)• DTS-05009 (QoS class)• DTS-07003 (Mobility)

STF 158

R. Forbes (Marconi) reported on the work of STF 158 and its ToR/project plan. STF 158 is a project managementSTF; it is interested in aligning the work of SPAN SPARs (Service provider access requirements) with TIPHON.

20TD-068 is a liaison from the SPAN6 Chair, in collaboration with STF 158, to STF 114 on TIPHON architectureand its use. It outlines requirements for third party access to network functionality to enable service providers accessto facilities to deliver telecommunications services over the networks of other organizations. This includes bothtrusted third parties and any third party, which may mean that two different levels or types of interface will berequired; this is the subject of the SPAR work. Until now SPAN6 has concentrated on the circuit-switched networkonly, their work is now extended to consider IP networks. In this liaison, STF 158 invites TIPHON to look at theIP network-related aspects of the SPAI (Service provider access interfaces, STF 158) implementation, from theservice control plane, service user plane (or media stream), and management viewpoints. This liaison also considersthe inter-working with the fixed PSTN and the mobile PLMN. This area of work is considered crucial to enablingthe full potential of telecommunications services to be reached over the next 20 years.

20TD-083 and 20TD-088 present the STF 158 Project plan: SPAN; Management of standards to support open inter-network interfaces and service provider access. The plan provides a reference source for Open Network requirements,rather than protocol specifications, to be taken by specific technical expert working groups. Progress reports willbe made to the Chairman of SPAN6, then forwarded, together with milestones achieved, to TC SPAN for approval.

The work is planned in 3 Phases, principally to align with current planned protocol releases. The recent 3rdGeneration Mobility Service Provider Access work is primarily identified together with IN Service Control Functionas offering a future open inter-network and service provider access solution.

Cross referencing is achieved through comprehensive sets of tabulated requirements to enable effective mappingbetween capabilities. Existing standards are utilized wherever practical. A minimum set of services, namelyFreephone, Premium Rate, Card Call, VPN and UPT are supported. It is foreseen that the plan project will bedeveloped in line with revisions of relevant draft ETSI Open Network related Guides.

FOCUS PRESENTATION ON WG1

R. Swale (BT) presented an overview of the current work of WG1, Requirements, to allow those experts who did notparticipate in previous WG1 meetings to understand the issues (20TD-099). This will be done for the other WGs inthe upcoming TIPHON meetings. When the new meeting scheme is in force, i.e., three plenaries per year instead ofsix, and more WG meetings, this kind of presentation will constitute the core of the TIPHON plenary meetings.

WORK PLANS

Special attention should be paid to DTR-00002, the release definition document for Release 3; it is based on theprocess as described in DTR-01007, the TIPHON project method definition. The titles of the WIs have beenpartially modified to take into account the rules as set up in DTR-01007. The WGs were asked to check theallocation to the steps of the TIPHON process and the modified titles. The WG5 Chair expressed a concern that themodifications made in DTR-00002 may have more than editorial character and may therefore need to be checked withthe entire WG. All the WGs were invited to check the potentially modified titles of the WIs, and comment to theChair before the next meeting.

OTHER PLENARY HIGHLIGHTS

The Chair reported that TIPHON has issued proposals for 3 STFs:



• STF 1, on testing• STF 2, on security• STF 3, on general issues like architecture and protocols

20TD-111 is an informal liaison to Pulver.com from TIPHON PMC (ETSI Project management and committeesupport dept.) It informs that TIPHON is scheduled to complete Release 3 of Project TIPHON at the TIPHON 22meeting scheduled for March 26 - 30, 2001, in Gaithersburg, MD, USA. The Pulver.com Voice On the Net (VON)trade show is a significant forum for developers, service providers, and users of VoIP technology, and hasdemonstrated support for ongoing ETSI activities. This liaison proposes that TIPHON request the opportunity topresent an overview of the goals and accomplishments of Project TIPHON at the Spring 2001 VON, March 20 - 22,2001 in Phoenix, AZ, USA.

20TD-033 (STF 114, S. Cadzow) provides a tutorial technical background on TIPHON to be included withappropriate TIPHON correspondence.

20TD-054 (STF 114, S. Cadzow), an information paper, reviews the results of the European Commission review ofthe telecommunications environment released July, 2000:

• COM(2000)392: July 12 2000; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council onuniversal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services

• COM(2000)393: July 12 2000; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on acommon regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services

• COM(2000)394: July 12 2000; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on accessto, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities

In some cases the proposals make recommendations that are technically difficult to meet, particularly for someexisting technologies. This is particularly in regard to unbundling of network and service which in mobile networks(GSM) may be difficult and certainly for MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) types of operation is aprerequisite. The concept of number portability is also made difficult in such networks as a direct consequence of therelationship between IMSI, MSISDN and ICCID (Integrated circuit card ID).

WORKING GROUP 1, REQUIREMENTS

The WG1 Chair is R. Swale (BT). 20TD-006 is the agenda. The meeting report is 20TD-014.

The STF action items include contributing to the development of:

• WI-1008, Simple call requirements definition• WI-1009, Simple call service capability• WI-1005, H.323 and SIP interworking

LIAISONS

20TD-038 is a liaison from ITU SG16 in response to the outgoing liaison from WG8 on the H.235 Hybrid securityprofile (19TD-124). SG16 agrees that H.235 Annex D (signature based profile) and H.235 Annex E (digitalsignature security profile) are suitable for the support of scalable, global, and secure IP telephony services andapplications. SG16 welcomes the collaboration with TIPHON on the VoIP security issues and the continuing workwith H.235 and its security annexes. This liaison includes the most recent version of H.235 Annex F, the hybridsecurity profile for H.235 v.3.

20TD-079 is a liaison from TTT Services. This document describes the different UPT procedures provided by theTTT-Services Trial as well as the its Man-Machine Interface (MMI). Furthermore the menus used by the MMI andthe different states the interface may have are specified. Since the interaction between the user and the system issometimes rather complex, especially where the users want to change the entries in their user profiles, a web-basedinterface shall also be provided by the Universal Personal Telecommunications Service Providers (UPTSPs)participating in the TTT-Services Trial. For deployment of different IP telephony services where SCNs are involved,it is necessary that a subscriber can configure his user-profile with DTMF tones as well as web-based and othertechnologies. A proposal of the different parameters stored in the user profiles is also given. Finally, a flow chartfor the two most important interactions between the users and the UPT environment are specified. These interactionsare:

• InCall registration• Out going call setup



The document provides a proposal for the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) messages sent to the users in thedifferent states of the communication together with an example of a dialogue for the two interactions mentionedabove.

TTT Services now proposes to take the requirement to transport this customer self-care information to the back-endservice on a standardization track. If one or more WIs (requirements, architecture, protocols) are necessary, severalTTT Services members will support them. In addition, TIPHON may consider taking the final man-machineinterface proposal of TTT Services as a recommended profile in its specifications.

20TD-069, Intelligent Network; Service provider access requirements; Enhanced telephony services [ETSI EG 201722], and 20TD-070, SPAN; Network Intelligence; Service provider access requirements in a fixed and mobileenvironment [SPAN-061602], were submitted from SPAN for consideration of call control interfaces. Thesecontributions were noted as contributions to future work on more advanced call handling.

20TD-069 lists the first set of access requirements that service providers (SPs) have in delivering services over one ormore public telecommunications networks (PTNs), primarily fixed PTNs, e.g., public switched telecommunicationsnetworks (PSTNs) and Integrated Services Digital Networks (ISDNs). The scope of the present document is topresent generic functional requirements regarding the service provider access (SPA). The priority of each requirementis based on the need perceived from the service provider’s viewpoint. Service interaction aspects are outside the scopeof the present document. These requirements are intended to facilitate non-discriminatory access to the PTNs. Thepresent document does not fully take into account the network integrity, security, charging, and other related aspectsfrom a PTNO’s perspective. These aspects are defined in DEG/SPAN-061603. 20TD-069 and DEG/SPAN-061603,should not be considered separately for implementation.

20TD-070 lists the second set of network access requirements that service providers (SPs) have in deliveringtelecommunication services, including, but not limited to, second and third generation mobile, cordless and fixedservices, over one or more operator’s networks. These requirements also include mobility-, Internet- and broadband-related aspects that were not yet covered by the preceding ETSI Guide 201 722. The priority of each requirement isbased on the need perceived from the service provider’s viewpoint.

WI-0002, RELEASE DEFINITION

20TD-058 (L. Vreck, ETSI) asks TIPHON to review and check some oversights and inconsistencies found in clauses 5and 6 of WI-0002, the TIPHON release definition document. This was discussed; WG members were asked toconsider it, and provide feedback to the plenary meeting when this work item will be discussed. At the draftingsession for WI-0002, the WG1 Chair provided update information and clarification of deliverables, and time scales forinclusion in this document.

WI-1004, MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Work on WI-1004 progressed during the meeting, but a substantial amount of editing is still required to align it withthe requirements of TIPHON Release 3; it was not approved. It will be progressed at an interim WG meeting beforeTIPHON 21 to meet the Release 3 time schedules.

WI-1005, SIP AND H.323 INTER-WORKING

WI-1005 has progressed, and some minor editorial changes were made; it was not approved. The only remainingissue concerns aspects of interworking scenarios where both the H.323 and SIP networks retain their own controlfunctions. Discussion was deferred to the email list, with a view to completing the document via email andobtaining WG approval in advance of TIPHON 21.

WI-1006, REQUIREMENTS ON THE IP TRANSPORT PLANE

WI-1006 has been re-titled following development of WI-1008, Simple call requirements definition; it nowconcentrates on the generic, service-independent requirements between the service abstraction layer and the transportabstraction layer. 19TD-122, 1006.2, Release 3 Service independent requirement definition, provides the change inscope. A new WI sheet will be produced to cover the change in scope.

20TD-048 (P. Sijben, Lucent) requests the addition of authorization tokens in the transport architecture to allow thirdparty QoS approval. The current transport architecture as defined in DTS-05003 and DTS-02009 allows two formsof QoS reservation: first party [the end-point/domain requests QoS for its own use using reference point (Q)I1,(Q)I2,



or T1] and third party [a service provider requesting QoS on behalf of a user using reference point (Q)T2]. A third,hybrid approach may be advantageous: first party request with third party authorization. The service provider would(pre)authorize the transport (QoS) usage; the user would then refer to this authorization and would be granted theusage. This was discussed and considered for inclusion in drafting WI-1006.

20TD-113 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes that ETSI TIPHON approve WG1’s revision of the current WI-1006 toconsider the requirements between the service abstraction layer and the transport abstraction layer in the TIPHONenvironment.

WI-1008, S IMPLE CALL REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION

WI-1008 was substantially progressed during the meeting, but considerable work remains to complete it. The roleand nature of service capabilities was clarified.

20TD-045 (P. Sijben, Lucent) identifies issues for which requirements need to be created in WI-1008 and WI-1009.The requirements are: TIPHON shall provide the capability for users to make calls to users who have a subscriptionwith another TIPHON-compliant service provider. These requirements seem to have been addressed in DTS-02003and DTS-02007 already. This contribution proposes that WG1 accept the spirit of these requirements to ensure amore solid foundation for the Architecture WG. This was discussed; WG1 agreed to consider it as a contributiontowards the drafting of WI-1008 and WI-1009.

WI-1009, S IMPLE CALL SERVICE CAPABILITY

Further progress of this WI is predicated on the completion of WI-1008. It will receive minor editorial changes priorto the completion of WI-1008.

WI-1010, QOS MANAGEMENT

Discussion on WI-1010 progressed during the meeting, but further work will be required to complete it at the WGlevel prior to TIPHON 21.

WI-1011, FAULT MANAGEMENT

Discussion on WI-1011 progressed during the meeting, but further work will be required to complete it at the WGlevel prior to TIPHON21.

WI-1012, F IREWALL AND INTER-DOMAIN ROUTING

20TD-112 (S. Roe, Ridgeway) contains draft DTR-01012 v.0.0.1; it provides some suggested additions to v.0.0.0,specifically for sections 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1.1 (Application Tunnels). The suggested text was incorporated within thenew version, WI-1012 v.0.1.0.

ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

20TD-086 (P. Sijben, Lucent) presents a proposal for the reinstatement of business roles in TIPHON. The TIPHONreference architecture should be applicable to real business situations; it should not mandate one business model forVoIP. This contribution describes a number of these roles, as defined by the TINA group. The TIPHON modelidentifies four of such roles (played by stakeholders): the consumer, retailer, service provider and the connectivityprovider. Interfaces can be defined between these roles. These roles were lost in the TIPHON documents when WI-1003 was dropped; it seems this material is needed. This document was discussed; it was noted for further work onservice-independent requirements.

INTERIM MEETING

WG1 will hold an interim meeting before TIPHON 21 to maintain the progress on these deliverables necessary tomeet the Release 3 schedule. It will be held in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, November 20-23, 2000. The major goals forthis meeting will be to complete the management deliverables (WI-1004, WI-1010, and WI-1011) and the servicecapabilities for Release 3 (WI-1008 and WI-1009). If time permits, other work items may be progressed.

WORKING GROUP 2, ARCHITECTURE

The WG2 Chair is J. Vandenameele (Alcatel Bell). 20TD-007r2 is the agenda. The meeting report is 20TD-015.The main objectives of the meeting were to get a stable draft of DTS-02007 and to get a first text for DTS-02009.



THE STF REPORT

The STF is currently supporting the progress of DTS-02007, MI-02008 and DTS-02009.

STF 114 (Support of TIPHON for VoIP development) will be closed. TIPHON has proposed three STF teams toprovide support to the project next year. The following three documents from S. Cadzow (ETSI) were noted:

• 20TD-029, ToR for STF xxx for support to EP/TIPHON in year 2001 for interoperable IP telephony andmultimedia applications

• 20TD-030, ToR for STF yyy on development of testing specifications for EP/TIPHON in year 2001 See WG6report below.

• 20TD-031, ToR for STF zzz to support EP/TIPHON in year 2001 for eEurope 2001 development

DTS-02007, APPLICATION OF TIPHON FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR INTER-DOMAIN SERVICES

20TD-046 (P. Sijben, Lucent, Interim Rapporteur) contains DTS-02007 v.0.3.1; it includes a proposal forrefocusing the document. WG2 agreed to take both the proposal and the new draft as the basis for further drafting.

20TD-056 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes to add a generic token to a number of the TIPHON reference flows to allowfor the case where the terminal or the media gateway has to signal for QoS itself, which may happen either viaRSVP, diffServ, or some mechanism not yet standardized. WG2 agreed to the proposed changes for both DTS-02007 and DTS-02009.

20TD-095 (J. Holm, L.M. Ericsson) discusses the routing and authorization functions in the clearinghouse, andproposes changes to DTS-02007 and DTS-02009 (addendum to DTS-02003) to cover the clearinghouse functions. Itproposes to add a new reference point, SCSC1. WG2 discussed the need for a new reference point. It was agreed toavoid the creation of new reference points and to first discuss in detail which new parameters are required. It was alsoagreed that details on the Clearinghouse architecture should be in DTS-02007 and that DTS-02009 should containonly the generic information.

20TD-095r1 contains a number of changes to the proposal in 20TD-095, Clearinghouse architecture; informationflows and reference configuration (J. Holm, L.M. Ericsson). The major change is that the proposed new referencepoint, SCSC1, has been deleted. The related information flows are now covered by those over S2 and S3. Referencepoint S4 has been added in accordance with earlier agreements within the DTS-02003 design team. WG2 agreed tothis in principle, but further discussion is required.

20TD-101 (P. Sijben, Lucent) discusses using the TIPHON architecture for firewall traversal. Firewalls areemployed to enforce access and other policies of networks. TIPHON assumes domains with its own policies, hencethe TIPHON domain-based architecture is well suited to describe a world with firewalls. This proposal describes howthe TIPHON architecture can be used to describe how IP telephony through firewalls can be achieved. WG2 agreedto include this proposal in the DTS-02007 draft.

A short drafting session, chaired by P. Sijben (Lucent, Editor) resulted in DTS-02007 v.0.3.2. Contributions wererequested on the open topics listed below, in addition to detailed comments on all other sections:

• Card services• Authorization• Domains (introduction based on WG1 deliverable/document)

MI-02008, M ODELING OF TIPHON ARCHITECTURE

20TD-091 (P. Pessi, Nokia) provides an update on WI-02008. P. Pessi will undertake a simulation of the userregistration scenario and the TIPHON call scenarios 1-4 and 0. He will report the results at the TIPHON 21 WG2meeting. The current version of the work item is contained in MI-02008 v.0.5.0; it corresponds to DTS-02003v.0.10.10.

DTS-02009, TIPHON RELEASE 3 NETWORK ARCHITECTURE AND REFERENCE CONFIGURATION

20TD-035 (J. Vandenameele, Alcatel Bell) lists the new topics as identified during the TIPHON 19 WG2 meeting,and proposes the list be used as the basis for the outline of the DTS-02009 draft. It was agreed to convert the listinto an action list; the Editor will include it in the new draft of DTS-02009.

20TD-051 is a first outline of DTS-02009. The initial draft will contain the list given in 20TD-035. Items will bedropped from the list as they are covered in the deliverable.



20TD-028 (C Vermeulen, ETSI STF 114) aims to identify some of the assumptions contained in WI-2003, therecently approved abstract architecture document, to determine whether they may restrict the ability to apply thearchitecture to real, concrete situations and protocols. Some of these assumptions may not be clearly identified, andsome of the implications of figures and diagrams, e.g., MSCs, are not covered by explanatory text. Thiscontribution proposes that assumptions found to be incorrect or contrary to the intent of the architecture document beclarified in DTS-02009. WG2 did not discuss this in detail; it was agreed to more fully discuss the impact of this onDTS-02009 on the WG2 email list and at the WG2 meeting planned for October.

20TD-044 calls for the development of a harmonized work plan between 3GPP IM domain and the work plan ofTIPHON. The two releases that need to be combined are 3GPP-R2000 and TIPHON-R3/R4. WG2 agreed that theharmonization of work plans as proposed is a matter for the TIPHON project as a whole; WG2 should actaccordingly. For the time being, there is no action for WG2 on this, except for promoting the functionalarchitecture. (See the WG7 report, below.)

20TD-048 (P. Sijben, Lucent) requests the addition of authorization tokens in the transport architecture to allow thirdparty QoS approval. (See the report in WG1, above.) WG2 agreed to include authorization tokens in DTS-02009;some of the details need further discussion. Contributions were solicited.

20TD-052 proposes to consider the use of the Gn/Gp and Gr/Gc reference and interface points in TIPHON to supportmobile services; this is in addition to the use of the Gi reference point. It will provide TIPHON with a GPRS/3Gpersonality.

20TD-057 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes transport functional element definitions for DTS-02009. In leveraging theappropriate text for the transport architecture as proposed in 19TD-069, Proposal for normative annex to DTS-05003(P. Sijben, Lucent; P. Mart, Marconi Communications), and accepted during TIPHON 19, the transport architecturetext has a different style than the rest of the text. WG2 agreed to include this in DTS-2009 to amend part of thissituation.

20TD-063r1 (S. Schaffer, ECI Telecom [IAEI]) proposes to include aggregate bearer functional capabilities in DTS-02009. It further proposes to support the method of resource aggregation control in the telephony application plane,and to include connection admission control (CAC) and aggregate resource management in layers belonging to themedia gateway controller (MGC). Optionally, the media gateway will be capable of performing bandwidth usagemeasurements. It will be possible to use load control information elements between the media layer and theaggregate resource manager. WG2 agreed to include at least the call control related aspects in DTS-02009.

20TD-065 (G. Schmied, Infonova) contains a proposal to improve the mapping of the functions of the oldarchitecture with the new reference points in Annex B of DTS-02003. Annex B shows the relationship between thearchitecture in the present document and the previous architecture given in the TS 101 313. WG2 agreed to changethe figure in Annex B, with the following modifications: use only S3 and S2 without SC2, and without the boxesimplying physical implementations.

No drafting occurred during this WG2 meeting. The editor, J. Holm (L.M. Ericsson), will create DTS-02009v.0.0.1 and upload it prior to the WG2 interim meeting scheduled for October 18 - 19, 2000 in Huizen, theNetherlands.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THIRD-PARTY CONTROL

A joint WG1/WG2 brainstorm session on third-party control was held; the following two contributions wereconsidered.

20TD-062, Third party call control, SCP interworking, and call model integration in the TIPHON architecture (N.Makinae, H. Sunaga, TTC/NTT), is a major revision of 19TD-096, which itself is a minor revision of 18TD-087,Mapping of IN-IP interworking model onto TIPHON architecture (TTC and NTT). 20TD-062 was presented duringthe WG2 meeting, and also reviewed during the WG1 meeting. Third party businesses are characterized into 3models:Model I A third party acts as a service provider. It controls an incumbent local exchange carrier’s network and

provides a service to its customers.Model II A third party acts as a value-added service provider, which interacts with a telecommunications carrier. For

example, a third party’s CT server interacts with a telecommunications carrier’s SCP.Model III A third party acts as a software vendor and offers a service application program that runs on a

telecommunications carrier’s network.



20TD-062 includes three proposed changes for DTS-02003, and proposes new reference points to integrate third-partycontrol elements into the TIPHON architecture. This was noted for consideration of future work on more advancedcall handling. Release 4 is expected to include consideration of IN/AIN capabilities. New WIs in several workinggroups will likely be required in support; they should be initiated at TIPHON 21.

20TD-083 is the ETSI STF 158 Project plan: SPAN; Management of standards to support open inter-networkinterfaces and service provider access. The work reported in this document is based on the SPAN requirementsdocument copied in 20TD-069, Intelligent Network; Service provider access requirements; Enhanced telephonyservices (ETSI EG 201 722).

It was agreed that WG1 should start a requirements activity first, in accordance with the TIPHON process. Also,each WG was asked to propose a list of study items. No specific action item was identified for WG2.

WORKING GROUP 3, CALL CONTROL

R. Brennan (GRIC Communications) is the WG3 Chair. The agenda is 20TD-008r3. The report of this meeting is20TD-016.

The main objectives of the WG3 meeting were to:• Approve at the WG3 level:

-DTS-03014.2-DTS-03016

• Progress to stable draft:-DTS-03009-DTS-03017-DTS-03018-DTS-03019

STF action items included harmonizing DTS-03017 with WG6 PICS.

RTS-03004.3, I NTERFACE PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION

20TD-109 is Version 2.2 of the new WI for OSP, TS 101 321 (R. Brennan, GRIC Communication, Rapporteur).It was supported by GRIC, Nuera, Ericsson, and Lucent; it was provisionally approved.

DTS-03009, I NTERWORKING BETWEEN H.450 AND QSIG/DSS1 SUPPLEMENTARY SERVICES

There were no contributions towards DTS-03009; it has received no contributions since its creation. It was stopped.

A liaison from ECMA regarding this issue was received at TIPHON 19 (see CSR 11.8, Update on related groups).WG3 may want to re-activate this item as a Release-4 document.

DTS-03011, S IGNALING FOR BASIC CALLS AND INTER-DOMAIN CALLS BETWEEN AN H.323 TERMINALAND A TERMINAL IN A SWITCHED-CIRCUIT NETWORK (SCN); PHASE III

DTS-03011 v.1.3.4 was approved.

DTR-03014.2, MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DEFINITION

There were no new contributions or comments towards DTR-03014.2; WG3 approved it, as completed at TIPHON19 (v.0.0.2).

DTR-03016, PROTOCOL FRAMEWORK

T. Peurasaari (Nokia), Rapporteur, presented the latest draft (v.0.2.0) of DTR-03016 (previously DTS-03016).

20TD-055 (P. Sijben, M. Buckley, Lucent) proposes physical / functional mappings of TIPHON functional entitiesto physical entities, to be included in DTR-03016. The proposed tables show a clear pattern of the reference pointsthat are likely to be implemented using external interfaces. (See also the WG5 report, below .)

20TD-032 (C. Vermeulen, STF-114) proposes that the DTR-03016 protocol requirements be structured along thetype of protocol, e.g., call control, service control, media coding, gateway control, bearer control, to ease theapplication of the framework towards concrete protocols.



20TD-039 (C. Vermeulen, STF-114) contains a proposal for replacement of the existing clause 5 of the frameworkdocument, WI-03016; it proposes that the Clause 5 title be changed to “Functional analysis.”

20TD-066 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes the structure for DTR-03016 v.0.2.0 for adoption in the next version of thedocument.

WG3 agreed that both structural changes and additional content to the document are required to achieve a stable draftand WG3 approval. It was suggested that several annexes be created, including a temporary annex to cacheinformation useful to the drafting process. Additional content is needed in the areas of security, QoS, management,and accounting. It was agreed to share this draft input information on the WG3 mailing list, and then convene WG3at an interim meeting in October. A stable draft and WG3 approval on the mailing list is expected prior to TIPHON21.

DTS-03017, I MPLEMENTATION OF TIPHON ARCHITECTURE USING H.323

20TD-081 (J. Holm, Ericsson, Editor) is the first draft text of DTS-03017; it was reviewed and discussed.Harmonization of this document and the WG6 PICS is needed; STF support with this was requested. Completion ofthis document will need to include analysis of the issues raised in the liaison from WG6 (20TD-107) (see the WG6report, below). WG3 agreed to continue progressing this document on the WG3 mailing list and at the WG3 interimmeeting in October. A stable draft and WG3 approval on the mailing list is expected prior to TIPHON 21.

DTS-03018, I MPLEMENTATION OF TIPHON ARCHITECTURE USING SIP

A. Aslam (Lucent), Rapporteur, presented a revised draft version of DTS-03018; it was reviewed and discussed.WG3 agreed to continue progressing this document on the WG3 mailing list and at the WG3 interim meeting inOctober. A stable draft and WG3 approval on the mailing list is expected prior to TIPHON 21.

DTS-03019, I MPLEMENTATION OF TIPHON ARCHITECTURE USING H.248

20TD-037 (P. Sijben, Lucent, Editor) is draft DTS-03019, with an issues list; it was reviewed and discussed.Among several issues raised was the need for a more extensive discussion on code point, and harmonization withBICC activity. WG3 agreed to continue progressing this document on the WG3 mailing list, and at the WG3interim meeting in October; WG3 will extend an invitation to the BICC editor to attend this meeting. A stable draftand WG3 approval on the mailing list is expected prior to TIPHON 21.

MISCELLANEOUS

Contact ID

20TD-053 (P. Rosbotham, Cable & Wireless) provides a discussion of the format of the contact ID. DTR-04006provides guidance for the resolution of E.164 numbers to an entity defined as the contact ID, but the issue of theformat of the contact ID was left for further study. It has been acknowledged that this format may be protocol-specific. (See the WG4 report, below.)

20TD-075 (H. Wermescher, TTT Services; R. Brennan, GRIC Communications) is a liaison from TTT Services; itproposes that TIPHON WGs 3 and 4 include the future-proved aspect of ITU-T Recommendation E.118 in the finaldefinition of the contact ID in their specifications. ITU-T Recommendation E.118 defines an Issuer ID number todesignate Service Providers. The use of E.118 numbering as an identifier, and adherence to the underlying ISO/IEC7812-1 structure, allows for a potentially large number of service provider types, both within and outside of theTelephony Service provider space. In addition, use of this scheme could eliminate the need for future mappingbetween Service Provider identifications use for internal purposes such as ContactID, and Service Provideridentifications already in use for card-based (and other) billing services.

It was agreed that these two contributions represent two distinct issues: the determination of an identifier for“networks,” to be used in contact ID, and the need for a more generic identifier for “service provider,” which may ormay not be network related. Analysis of these elements will be included in progress of the existing deliverables atthe WG3 interim meeting in October.

Token Issues

20TD-048 (P. Sijben, Lucent) requests the addition of authorization tokens in the transport architecture to allow thirdparty QoS approval. (See also the WG1 report, above.)



20TD-056 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes to add a generic token to a number of the TIPHON reference flows to allowfor the case where the terminal or the media gateway has to signal for QoS itself, which may happen either viaRSVP, diffServ, or some mechanism not yet standardized. (See also the WG2 report, above.)

These contributions were discussed. The primary issue raised concerns the relationship between tokens (and rootcertificate authorities) used for: authorization, e.g., OSP, QoS, or both. WG3 agreed that additional aspects of thesecurity profiles related to token issuance should be included in the analysis of the existing deliverables at the WG3interim meeting in October.

LIAISON ACTIVITIES

20TD-107 (C. Neto, STF-166) requests technical clarification on two questions from WG3 for two questions relatedto TSS and TP (H.225.0). WG3 discussed this liaison as part of the analysis requirements for consideration in theexisting WG3 deliverables. This will be discussed further at the interim meeting in October.

20TD-110 is a liaison to China MII (Ministry of Industry Information) on behalf of EP TIPHON. The ChinaMinistry of Information Industry (MII) (http://www.mii .gov.cn/) has recently established standards andinteroperability guidelines for ITU-T H.323-based VoIP services within China. This liaison proposes establishmentof a formal liaison between ETSI TIPHON and the China MII. It asks that MII be invited to present an overview oftheir ongoing standardization activity to TIPHON 21, scheduled for December 4 - 8, in Kyoto, Japan, or to asubsequent meeting if desired.

INTERIM MEETING

To meet the Release 3 deliverable date, an interim WG3 meeting will be held; it will focus on deliverables DTR-03016, DTS-03017, DTS-03018, and DTS-03019.

WORKING GROUP 4, NAMING, ADDRESSING

J. Horrocks (DTI) is the WG4 chair. 20TD-009r1 is the agenda; 20TD-017 is the report of this meeting.

CONTACT ID

20TD-053 (P. Rosbotham, Cable & Wireless) provides a discussion of the format of the contact ID. DTR-04006provides guidance for the resolution of E.164 numbers to an entity defined as the Contact ID, but the issue of theformat of the Contact ID was left for further study. It has been acknowledged that this format may be protocol-specific. A Contact ID is defined as, “An intermediate identifier for the destination of the next point of resolution(i.e., the destination of the next hop for the signaling messages). The form of Contact ID may vary and may or maynot depend on the protocol and the technology used in the transport plane.” There are, in fact, two categories ofContact ID:

• A Contact ID that identifies an intermediate node - “Intermediate Contact ID”• A Contact ID that identifies the terminating (home) gatekeeper - “Terminating Contact ID”

This was discussed at some length. The aim is to produce a framework that gives a range of methods fordetermining routes for signaling and media from the called E.164 number. The following points emerged from thediscussion:

• The role of a public resolution service is to resolve from an E.164 number to a name for a point within or at theboundary of the area covered by the service. For a global resolution service this could be anywhere; for a nationalservice it could be a point within a country or an international gateway.

• Networks may use their own private internal resolution system for step-by-step routing.• Different resolution/routing methods may be used for different stages of a call.• A contact ID provided by any public service should be a name rather than an address, but could include letters or

digits or both.• Resolution would be facilitated if the name could be resolved to an address using DNS technology.• A standard form of name, or at least a common SLD (maybe under .arpa) to be used for contact IDs, would

facilitate the provision of adequate dimensioning and speed of response.

WG4 agreed that the recent work that currently is contained only in various TDs should be written into an update ofDTR-04006. This was supported by BT, CWC, DTI, Neustar, Siemens, Telcordia, and Telekom Austria.



RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM

Q. Collier (BT) presented a paper listing both the dynamic and static relationships involved in opening accounts,logging on, and making calls. He also introduced the idea of using color to indicate the different durations ofrelationships. He and P. Fellows (CGI Certis) agreed to collaborate on the preparation of relationship diagrams foropening accounts, logging on, and making calls. The importance of ensuring that back-office systems have adequateinformation to fulfill their tasks was emphasized.

UCI, UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATIONS IDENTIFIER

20TD-040 is a liaison from TTT Services. TTT Services sees strong relations between UPT and UCI (UniversalCommunications Identifier) which would identify the intended receiver and not a terminal; they have discussed theissues, and concluded that the UCI derived as a result of the study of STF 157 (See 19TD-082 and 19TD-083 in CSR11.8, TIPHON 19 WP1 report) in conjunction with the work already done in TIPHON and TTT-Services for UPTservices offers a practical way forward to an effective way of managing communications in an increasingly complexenvironment. They include their document, TTTServices08td12, From UPT to UCI, and ask that TIPHONcomment on it, and decide on further action on this issue.

20TD-074 is a letter from the TTT Services Chair to the ITU TSB; it requests the continuation of the reservation forthe code 878878 for the International UPT. In March 2000 the TTT-Services project received the reservation of thecode 878878 for the International UPT Service test and trials until 11/22/2000. It is planned to continue the TTT-Services project in the form of an IP-Telephony Memorandum of Understanding for which a phased approach isforeseen which is as follows:

• TTT-Services test and service trial until 11/22/2000;• Initiation of pre-commercial phase on 11/22/2000 (introduction of an agreed common set of services);• Commercial service starts mid 2001;• Phased introduction of additional inter-domain services in the future.

According to this time schedule, the TTT Services Chair asks the ITU to prolong the reservation of the code 878878for International UPT for the pre-commercial phase until Mid 2001. In this pre-commercial phase, TTT plans tomanage the International UPT number by a company that has already contributed in the standardization during theTTT-Services project for the realization for a global distributed database with administrative and real-time part withvery high scalability and reliability (fulfilling requirements like 30,000 queries per second estimated to be necessaryfor about 100,000,000 IP-Telephony subscribers). Before mid-2001, TTT will report about the status of the projectto the ITU and expects to ask then for a final assignment.

20TD-078 is a liaison from TTT Services in support of 20TD-040. It shows that the International UPT service is agood basis for the unique numbering part of UCI; International UPT is perfectly open for future user-oriented aspectsof naming and numbering.

WG4 agreed that the future TC HF work on UCIs should be followed and supported as necessary, even though it isnot a high priority for WG4.

WI-04008, RESOLUTION SERVICE CAPABILITY – REAL TIME

20TD-049a (H. Liu, Telcordia, Editor) is the second draft of WI-04008, Requirements definition for the real-timeaspects of a TIPHON resolution service. The current document has incorporated input from the Ottawa meeting.The purpose of the Resolution Function (RF) in TIPHON is to provide a centralized function which will allow aTIPHON compliant network to identify an intermediate or terminating service provider to which a call should berouted. The heart of RF in TIPHON is the Number Resolution Database, called the RF Database (RFDB), whichmaps an E.164 number to the identity of a service provider. Specifically, TIPHON resolution service is generalizedto handle resolution for globally unique E.164 numbers, instead of only UPT numbers. Comments from Q. Collier(BT) were discussed.

WG4 discussed the name for the resolution function. Consensus affirmed that the name “TIPHON” should beincluded; the name decided on is “TIPHON Resolution Capability” (TRC). WG4 is producing the requirementsdefinition for this capability. WG1, with support from WG4, will produce the corresponding service capabilitydescription.

The following points were made:



• The TRC is a generic capability and not exclusively related to UPT-like services, but it should be capable ofsupporting these services with both global and national numbering.

• The function is to resolve an E.164 number to a terminating contact ID that is a name. This contact ID will bethe final destination unless the final destination is beyond the area covered by the TRC; in that case the contactID will be either another TRC or an interconnection point at the boundary of the area covered by the TRC in thedirection of the final destination.

• The resolution is “objective;” the contact ID provided will be the same for all queries made on the same E.164number irrespective of who makes the query. A network operator’s own routing will be “subjective;” it willdepend on its routing policy and interconnection arrangements.

• Contact IDs identify network operators rather than service providers.• The real-time capability may be provided by more than one competing operator. Operators are not obliged to use

the real-time TRC provided by a third party, but may use the same information obtained from the referencedatabase within an on-line capability that they supply themselves.

20TD-076 is a liaison from TTT Services in support of 20TD-049 as a basis for WI-04008.

WI-04009, RESOLUTION SERVICE CAPABILITY – ADMINISTRATIVE

20TD-050 (H. Liu, Telcordia, Editor) is the first draft of the new WI-04009, Requirements definition for theadministrative aspects of a TIPHON resolution service. This document discusses requirements regarding theadministrative aspects of number resolution services (RS) in the context of TIPHON. It presents both functional andsystem requirements. The functional requirements include service provider management, subscriber recordmanagement, telephone number management, and number portability impacts. The system requirements includescalability, performance, reliability, transport, and security. This was provisionally approved.

20TD-076 also supports the proposed new WI-04009, as contained in 20TD-077.

ENUM

20TD-106 (S. Shirasawa, TTC/NEC) is an update on IETF ENUM. ENUM is currently working with translation ofE.164 numbers into URI (Unified Resource Identifier), the so-called “E2U service.” URI to E.164 numbertranslation is out of their scope. They have agreed on the use of the Naming Authority Pointer resource record(NAPTR RR, see: http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-naptr-rr-04.txt) in the DNS being specified and“.arpa” domain name.

The ENUM procedures proposed are:

1. A phone number is translated into E.164 form by including country code or area/city code, e.g. 918-9020 dialedin St. Louis would be translated to +1-314-918-9020, where +1 is the North American country code.

2. Remove all character parts from the digits. Example: 131491890203. Reverse the order of the digits. Example: 020981941314. Put dots (“.”) between each digit. Example: 0.2.0.9.8.1.9.4.1.3.15. Append the domain “e164.arpa” to the end. Example: 0.2.0.9.8.1.9.4.1.3.1.e164.arpa6. Perform a DNS query on this domain.7. Retrieve relevant NAPTR Resource records from the Name Server for this number and perform whatever relevant

application required.

Issues relevant to deployment and operation are still open.

20TD-097 (R. Shockey, ENUM) is a preliminary draft FAQ on ENUM; it has not been reviewed or accepted byENUM. The central ENUM protocol document is located at: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-02.txt>

FUTURE MEETINGS

An interim meeting is planned for November 9-10 in Bracknell, UK. Three sessions are planned for the TIPHON 21December meeting in Kyoto, Japan:

• A tutorial session to cover European telecommunications and its regulation• A tutorial session to summarize the work of WG4• One working session



WORKING GROUP 5, QUALITY OF SERVICES (QOS)

The WG5 Chair is M. Buckley (Lucent). The agenda is 20TD-010; the report of this meeting is 20TD-018.

RTS-05012, QOS CLASSIFICATION TS 101 329 PART 2

20TD-047 (K. Adler, Alcatel) is the first draft of RTS-05012 on QoS. It defines four classes of QoS (best, high,medium and best effort) for characterizing the performance of TIPHON-compliant IP voice telephony networks. Theclasses of service apply to all the defined TIPHON scenarios. It gives, in addition, an overview of those speechquality related impairments that can be assigned either to the terminal or to the network, or to both. A proposal wasmade to remove the delay and listener speech quality classifications from the TIPHON class definitions; there was noagreement on this approach.

20TD-067 (P. Coverdale, Nortel) proposes that future enhancements of the TIPHON classes use the R-factor, ascalculated by the E-model, as the primary single figure metric for TIPHON QoS classes. The E-model will beapplied without any modifications specific to TIPHON. Future enhancements of the E-model will be left to ITU-TSG12 to determine. Limits for different QoS classes will be set without reference to the type of conversation. Amethod will be determined for allocating delay, consistent with keeping R as the primary voice quality metric.

WG5 agreed to maintain the descriptions of the TIPHON classes in their present format and to include a line in thedefinition of listener speech quality relating the speech quality measures to R-values, in terms of codec performance.It was agreed to add definition of non-speech multimedia classes to the next release of the document.

20TD-108 (K. Adler, Alcatel) gives information needed to support the flexible approach on QoS signaling asdescribed in DTS-05003; it indicates a method of deriving delay figures for TIPHON classes using the E-Model.WG5 agreed that this approach provides a good basis for calculating transport QoS parameters as defined in DTS-05003 and that this work should be continued possibly as a new work item.

DTS-05003, QOS FRAMEWORK, TS 101 329 PART 3

20TD-048 (P. Sijben, Lucent) requests the addition of authorization tokens in the transport architecture to allow thirdparty QoS approval. It was agreed to include this approach in the draft. (See also the WG1 report, above.)

20TD-055 (P. Sijben, M. Buckley, Lucent) proposes some mappings of TIPHON functional entities to physicalentities, to be included in DTS-05003. WG5 agreed to include this approach in the draft. (See also the WG3 report,above.)

20TD-056 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes to add a generic token to a number of the TIPHON reference flows to allowfor the case where the terminal or the media gateway has to signal for QoS itself, which may happen either viaRSVP, diffServ, or some mechanism not yet standardized. WG5 agreed to include this approach in the draft. (Seealso the WG2 and WG3 reports, above.)

20TD-063r1 (S. Schaffer, ECI Telecom [IAEI]) describes aggregate bearer mechanisms in the application layer. Itwas agreed make any necessary modifications to the draft to permit this. (See the WG2 report, above.)

20TD-082 (P. Sijben, Lucent) proposes a set of definitions to provide common terminology for use in TIPHONdocuments, in particular for incorporation into the latest revisions of the architecture and QoS documents.Definitions are proposed for: application data, payload, bearer, transport flow, packet flow, and application data flow.This was agreed in principle; it will be included in the draft after review by WG2.

An editing group met to review the latest text of DTS-05003, which was not completed at TIPHON 19, and toconsider the inclusion of the agreed new material. After production and review of two new drafts (DTS 101 329-3v.0.9.2 and v.0.9.3), it was finally agreed to delay approval; Section 9 was felt to need further consideration. It wasagreed to seek approval via the TIPHON mailing list, with the new draft (DTS 101 329-3 v.0.9.4) to be posted onthe mailing list before October 1; approval is expected by October 14, barring any problems.

It was agreed to create a new work item, DTS-05015, A signaling mechanism for achieving TIPHON QoS levels(20TD-123), to continue revisions and enhancements to DTS 101 329-3 following approval of DTS-05003. BT,Lucent, Alcatel, Nokia, and Nortel agreed to support this work.

DTS-05010, QOS MANAGEMENT TS 101 329 PART 4

There was no progress on this work item. However P. Fellows (CGI Certis) gave a presentation of the performancemanagement requirements document under development in WI-1010, Scope and requirements for QoS management.



DTS-05008, MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGIES TS 101 329 PART 5

DTS-05008 was approved by TIPHON.

20TD-087 (A. Clark, Telchemy) provides a comparison between the average packet loss model implied by G.113 andthe burst packet loss model described in DTS-05008 Annex E. It concludes that, under the simulated conditions, theAnnex E algorithm provides a more accurate and consistent approximation to the “ideal” value of Ie computed in realtime. These results were noted.

QOS TEST EVENT

20TD-098 (T. Scheerbarth, Deutsche Telekom AG; H.W. Gierlich, Head Acoustics) is the draft test specification forthe planned Speech Quality Test Event to be held October 23-28, 2000 in Sophia Antipolis, France.

OUTGOING LIAISONS

WG5 agreed to send a liaison to 3GPP in the form of a change request highlighting the differences between the QoSsystem document under development in 3GPP S2 and DTS-05003. S. Cadzow (ETSI) agreed to produce this liaisonand post it on the mailing list for agreement.

WORKING GROUP 6, VERIFICATION

K. Sambor (Telekom Austria) and H. Wermescher (Infonova) are the WG6 chairs. 20TD-011 is the agenda; 20TD-019 is the report of this meeting.

INTEROPERABILITY AND QOS SEECH EVENTS

No interop event occurred since the last meeting. Information about future events was reported.

T. Scheerbarth (Deutsche Telekom AG) reported on the draft test specification for the ETSI speech quality test event(20TD-098). The event is scheduled to begin October 23, 2000, and will take place at the ETSI premises. At thetime of this meeting, six potential participants had announced their interest in attending. Others interested inattending could still announce their interest by sending an email to Reinhard.Scholl@ETSI .FR.

A summary report of the event will be given at TIPHON 21. Due to the time-consuming assessment of the outputdata, a detailed report will be given at TIPHON 22. A link to the web pages of the speech event is available on theTIPHON web site: http://www.etsi.org/tiphon.

TTCN PRESENTATION FOR H.225.0

20TD-042 (F. Fischer, ETSI STF 166) is a presentation on the use of TTCN for the conformance test specificationfor H225.0. It was given to support the review of RTS-06016-2 and RTS-06016-3.

DTS-06014, SECURITY TEST SCENARIOS

A first text (v.0.0.1) of DTS-06014 was achieved.

20TD-104 (A. Krishnamoorthy, STF 114) is a “communication document” to WG8; it contains the output of theWG6 discussion on the various security test alternatives that can be used to progress DTS-06014. Three alternativemethods are shown which can represent the security aspects and the communication flows between the Terminal,Gatekeeper, Gateway and InterDomain Backend services. WG6 would like to know which alternative WG8 wouldsupport. WG6 will wait on the advice of experts from WG8 before progressing the document.

RTS-06015, TEST SPECIFICATION VERSION 4

A first text of RTS-06015 was not achieved. Discussion clarified that the base standard for Release 3, on which thetest specification Version 4 should be based, will only be available after this meeting; this issue will therefore behandled in the planned interim meeting. A. Krishnamoorthy (STF 114) will prepare a first draft.

RTS-06016-1, R EVISION/UPDATE OF H.225.0 PICS FOR TERMINAL, GATEKEEPER AND GATEWAY

The changes in the document from the last meeting, prepared by the STF as an input version (v.0.2.0) to thismeeting, were reviewed and agreed. Further elaboration on the Q.931 aspects will be done until the planned interim



meeting. C. Neto (Nokia) will add the Q.931 aspect to RTS-06016-1 and send it to the exploder before the nextmeeting.

DTS-06016-2, H.225.0 C ONFORMANCE TEST SPECIFICATIONS; TEST SUITE STRUCTURE (TSS) AND TESTPURPOSES (TP) FOR TERMINAL, GATEKEEPER AND GATEWAY

DTS-06016-2 v.0.0.1 (20TD-036) was reviewed, in general at first, and then select parts were reviewed in detail.The goal is to achieve a stable draft at the planned interim meeting.

During the review, C. Neto (Nokia) used some flow diagrams, which were very helpful in understanding the detaileddescription of the test purposes. It was agreed to include those figures in the next version of DTS-06016-2.

20TD-041 (C. Neto, STF 166) requests clarification of H.225 procedures to check some descriptions of test purposesin DTS-06016-2. Questions concern situations where it is not clear whether IUT (endpoint, gatekeeper ordestination gatekeeper) shall act/react according to H.225.0 or to Q.931 procedures. These questions were discussed.In two cases it was decided to formulate an internal communication to WG3 (see 20TD-107) for advice. Anamendment of H.225.0 (9/99) may be necessary, depending on the decision of WG3.

DTS-06016-3, H.225.0 C ONFORMANCE TEST SPECIFICATIONS; ABSTRACT TEST SUITE (ATS) AND PIXITPROFORMA FOR TERMINAL, GATEKEEPER AND GATEWAY

F. Fischer (ETSI STF 166) presented some example parts for the deliverable that were well understood because of thepresentation (20TD-042) given in the TTCN presentation for H.225.0. 20TD-043, ETSI TS 101 804-3 demo (2000-09), specifies the Abstract Test Suite (ATS) and partial Protocol Implementation eXtra Information for Testing(PIXIT) pro-forma for the H225.0 protocol for Terminal, Gatekeeper and Gateway. The objective of this documentis to provide conformance tests that give a greater probability of interoperability. The ATS and PIXIT specificationcovers the procedures described in ITU-T H.323 and ITU-T H.225. The ISO standards for the methodology ofconformance testing (ISO/IEC 9646-1, ISO/IEC 9646-2 and ISO/IEC 9646-3) are used as a basis for the testmethodology.

F. Fischer also referred to 19TD-055 and 19TD-054. 19TD-055 (F. Fischer) contains the first partial draft of theH.225 ATS/PIXIT part of DTS-06016-3 (TS 101 804-3) as available in v.0.0.0, and the test suite structure. AnATS using TTCN (ISO 9646-3) specifies test cases, which verify the procedures described inside the correspondingprotocol specification. For the correct execution of a test case, the behavior part shall include an initializationprocedure to bring the Implementation Under Test (IUT) in the proper state, and a check procedure to leave the IUTin a stable state. TTCN is also a complete formal test specification so that the content of the messages sent to IUTor received from the IUT is precisely defined.

WG6 had not yet addressed the questions raised in 19TD-055 and 19TD-054. These questions could not be answeredat this meeting; and therefore two open action items (30 and 32) were established after discussion of 20TD-093 (F.Fischer, ETSI STF 166), a request for clarification for ATS and PIXIT:

Action item 30: Usually TTCN test cases start with an initialization that proceeds with the requested action to set-upthe under layer (actually UDP/TCP). STF166 needs to know which procedures are requested there.

Action item 32: H.225.0 defines a lot of ASN.1 messages, each containing a lot of parameters without specifyingclearly the values to be used in them. These parameters are either mandatory or optional. For each of theseparameters, STF166 needs to know if a value is needed (optional) and its classification.

DTS-06017 PICS FOR H.248

DTS-06017 v.0.2.0, the input document to this meeting, was reviewed; some minor changes were discussed andagreed.

K. Sambor (Telekom Austria) reported on the PMC discussion on DTS-06017, which should be ready for Release 3.Because the final test specification will be based on final versions of standards/specifications, the date of finalizationof the test specifications for Release 3 can be postponed until TIPHON 23.

To achieve this, it was decided to reduce the scope of PICS for H.248 to the H.323 environment, and to propose anew work item for a revision of DTS-06017 for Release 4, which then should also include SIP.



NEW WORK ITEMS

20TD-030 (S. Cadzow, ETSI) is the proposed ToR for STF yyy on development of testing specifications forEP/TIPHON in the year 2001. It mentions the development of PICS, TSS and TP, and ATS (TTCN) for thefollowing protocols:

• H.248 (based on WI-03019, Implementation of TIPHON architecture using H.248)• H.245 (based on WI-03017, Implementation of TIPHON architecture using H.323)• SIP (based on WI-04018, Implementation of TIPHON architecture using SIP)• OSP (based on RTS-03004.2 [TS 101 321], OSP for inter-domain pricing, authorization, and usage exchange)• Security (based on WI-08004, Interoperability security profiles)

In intensive discussion, strong reservations were held in general against “conformance testing,” but it was agreed topropose the following new work items for the closing plenary:

For Release 3:

• Change the number of the deliverable for the PICS of H.248 from DTS-06017 to DTS-06017-1• DTS-06017-2: TIPHON Release 3; Step E Release PICS; TP and TSS for the support of ITU-T

Recommendation H.248 (based on WI-06017-1) (20TD-119)• DTS-06017-3: TIPHON Release 3; Step E Release PICS; ATS for the support of ITU-T Recommendation H.248

(based on WI-06017-2) (20TD-120)• DTS-06018-1: TIPHON Release 3; Step E Release PICS; PICS proforma for the support of ITU-T

Recommendation H.245 (taking the Release 3 documents WI-03017 into account) (20TD-116)• DTS-06018-2: TIPHON Release 3; Step E Release PICS; TP and TSS for the support of ITU-T

Recommendation H.245 (based on the revision of PICS for H.245) (20TD-117)• DTS-06018-3: TIPHON Release 3; Step E Release PICS; ATS for the support of ITU-T Recommendation H.245

(20TD-118)

For Release 4:

• 06019-1: Revision/update protocol implementation conformance statement (PICS) proforma for the support ofphysically decomposed multimedia gateway; Support of ITU-T recommendation H.248 (20TD-121). This wasdeferred to TIPHON 21.

Discussion of proposals for SIP, OSP, and security-related new WIs for conformance testing was deferred toTIPHON 22 (March, 2001); these items are candidates for Release 4.

NEXT WG6 MEETING

To achieve the finalization of test specification for TIPHON Release 3 specifications by TIPHON 23 (mid 2001), atwo-day TIPHON WG6 meeting is planned for November 9-10, 2000 in Sophia Antipolis. The goals of thismeeting are:

• Progress DTS-06014, taking into account the TIPHON 20 WG8 discussions• Deal with DTS-06015, taking into account WG3 results for TIPHON Release 3• Achieve stable draft status for DTS-06016-1, -2, -3• Achieve stable draft status for DTS-06017

TTCN launch

The TTCN Version 3 launch will take place on October 23-24, 2000 at the ETSI premises. (For details, contact A.Wiles, ETSI)

WORKING GROUP 7, WIRELESS

T. Hatala (Motorola) is the WG7 Chair. 20TD-012 is the agenda; 20TD-020 is the report of this meeting. Themain items addressed at this meeting were the TIPHON collaboration with 3GPP and MWIF (Mobile WirelessInternet Forum), and the progression of work items 7002 and 7003.

WORKING WITH 3GPP

T. Hatala (Motorola, Chair) gave a slide presentation (18TD-119) showing the 3GPP architecture and thecommonality between the work of TIPHON and 3GPP. A comment was made that there appears to be no difference



between the 3GPP architecture and TIPHON; in response, the point was made that the 3GPP architecture is a sub-setof TIPHON architecture. But 3GPP has not yet decomposed their architecture into a layered model; this may be anarea of interest where TIPHON can help 3GPP. WG7 felt that TIPHON is ahead of 3GPP in certain areas, such asend-to-end QoS.

Should 3GPP not be able to take advantage of TIPHON’s work, then at the least it would be mutually beneficial tosimplify and make as compatible as possible the interworking between a 3GPP network and a TIPHON-basednetwork. The 3GPP architecture has in the top right hand corner a multimedia IP network, one instance of which, itwas suggested, is a TIPHON-based H.323 network. Given that there are likely to be active TIPHON-based H.323networks before the introduction of SIP-based 3GPP networks, it makes sense that 3GPP should leverage off thesenetworks; this has already been recognized by some operators.

The 3GPP Gi and Mn reference points were identified as one of the possible interworking interfaces between the3GPP architecture and TIPHON. Since TIPHON is an abstracted architecture, of which SIP and H.323 are definedinstances, the contention is valid that a 3GPP network is a TIPHON network. However, while 3GPP can beconsidered to be a realization of a TIPHON network, it does not appear to have all the functionalities, such asproviding end-to-end QoS, that have been built into the TIPHON architecture.

Operators at the meeting were of the opinion that, due to the intense commercial pressure on the 3GPP Release 2000deliverables, TIPHON should not propose anything to 3GPP that may compromise their time schedules. The valueof TIPHON cooperating on future releases of 3GPP was generally recognized. It was suggested that inputs to thecurrent 3GPP release should be made only if the input is tangible. As mentioned above, 3GPP appears to have notas yet taken the end-to-end QoS model of TIPHON; in this area TIPHON can be of immediate benefit to 3GPP.This would enable 3GPP to interwork between different network domains at least for QoS, using the token passingmechanism that enables QoS interworking between different network domains and QoS mechanisms such as diffServand RSVP.

WG5 is drafting a change request to 3GPP on this QoS issue; it will be sent out via email for approval.

S. Cadzow (ETSI) produced a short report (20TD-044) on a harmonized work plan between 3GPP IM (InternetMultimedia) domain and the work plan of TIPHON, developing a framework and environment to harmonize allforms of telecommunications. 3GPP time schedules are commercially pressing, particularly in Europe where someoperators need to get third generation UMTS networks running to generate revenues for repayment of the license feesalready committed. TIPHON and 3GPP are working in the same industry; it makes sense to harmonize the workprograms to ensure that 3GPP commercial imperatives are met while also ensuring that the fixed (non-UMTS)networks (represented by TIPHON) can work with them. The two releases to be combined here are 3GPP-R2000 andTIPHON-R3/R4.

To the combination of the two releases proposed by this paper, operators responded with concern that this will slowdown the work in 3GPP Release 2000. A high level contact between TIPHON and 3GPP to discuss the issuesraised in this paper was suggested. The TIPHON Chair has sent an email to N. Andersen, Chair of the SystemArchitecture group of 3GPP, and is awaiting a response.

20TD-044 proceeds to consider areas of cooperation such as SIP, QoS, addressing naming and reachability, security,lawful intercept, mobility, call control, discovery mechanisms, regulation and regulator aspects. The document isincomplete, but there is enough to suggest that most areas of TIPHON and 3GPP overlap. To take the mostadvantage of the current synergy, TIPHON needs to offer to take over non-core areas of 3GPP. This means the SIPto H.323 developments. TIPHON needs to extend the 3GPP security area to cover the interworking cases, and to dothis in a joint session. It is necessary to ensure that the address resolution requirements set by 1 billion SIP mobileterminals connecting to several billion VoIP or E.164 phones are sorted.

20TD-044 also calls for a joint 3GPP/TIPHON workshop as soon as possible. WG7 feels that such a workshop is agood idea, but that later rather than sooner is appropriate, in light of the commercial pressures on 3GPP.

S. Cadzow recognized that problems exist with time scale and momentum that need to be resolved, on the part ofboth the project and the participating organizations. There is some urgency in this, as the problem is that if thework is not harmonized internally to ETSI it will not be harmonized in the market.

WORKING WITH MWIF (MOBILE WIRELESS INTERNET FORUM)

20TD-102 (M. Harris, Orange PCS) identifies potential areas of cooperation between MWIF and TIPHON. TheMobile Wireless Internet Forum (MWIF, http://www .mwif.org) was established in February 2000 to promote a



single, open, mobile, wireless Internet architecture that enables seamless integration of mobile telephony andInternet services, meeting the needs of network operators and Internet service providers, and that is independent of theaccess technology. To this end, MWIF is developing set of requirements and a target architecture, documented intwo stages as a layered functional architecture and a network reference architecture. The MWIF Technical Committeehas approved version 1 of the layered functional architecture and MWIF expects to approve the network referencearchitecture.

20TD-102 expands on particular areas that may be common to both MWIF and TIPHON, with the objective ofdiscussing the possibility of alignment of requirements and architectures. It gives the MWIF definitions of mobilityfor WG7 review, with a view to establishing a common approach to mobility. WG7 already has its own definitionsin DTR-07003; initial analysis reveals no apparent inconsistency or incompatibility. Further discussion on this isneeded.

MWIF’s objective is to “adopt, endorse and, where necessary, influence “best of breed” standards produced byrecognized standards bodies in order to specify its architecture.” “As part of MWIF’s proposed gap analysisidentifying the appropriate standards to define its architecture, MWIF may review the suitability of the TIPHONstandards. As such, there is the opportunity for TIPHON to work with MWIF in this area to facilitate the work ofMWIF and to promote wider acceptance of the TIPHON standards.”

A number of areas of cooperation have been identified, such as IP/circuit switched gateways, layered architecture,security, network management, standardized open interfaces and accounting. An opportunity also exists torationalize the terminology used within MWIF and TIPHON, with the long-term objective of a common set ofarchitectural layers.

20TD-090 (M. Harris, Orange PCS) is a slide presentation, Introduction to the work of the Mobile Wireless InternetForum. For many of the TIPHON members this presentation, along with 20TD-102, was their first exposure toMWIF; it was generally felt necessary to become more familiar with the work of MWIF before any decision oncooperation with MWIF can be made. In 20TD-114, TIPHON has asked the MWIF Technical Committee to makeavailable copies of their technical reports before TIPHON 21 (December 4-8, 2000):

• MTR-002, MWIF architecture requirements• MTR-003, MWIF layered functional architecture• MTR-004, MWIF network reference architecture

WI-07002, COMMON REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN TIPHON NETWORKS AND WIRELESS SYSTEMS

20TD-059 (S. Cadzow, ETSI STF 114) is a DECT appraisal for TIPHON WI-07002, Investigation of synergies andcommon requirements between TIPHON networks and wireless systems as they are currently being developed byother bodies.

WI-07002 is intended to adjudge the basic wireless capabilities in a number of access networks or access technologiesand determine their capability to work in the regulated QoS environment of TIPHON and in particular with the VoIPelements of TIPHON.

The existing version of WI-07002 captures the elements of TETRA’s radio capability, and specifically its numerouslogical channels and its message error rate variation under a number of path conditions. There is an intention tofollow up the approach taken for TETRA with a similar approach for GSM and DECT. In practice, DECT does notshare the kind of path condition analysis of GSM and TETRA because it is designed for short range use, inresidential or office environments. In such environments, the RF path conditions are optimal and error rates are low(DECT does not have the same level of MAC and LLC layer protection enjoyed by TETRA and GSM). It wassuggested that the DECT appraisal paper be given to the DECT group for review as it is updated.

DTS-07003, MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO WIRELESS SYSTEMS

20TD-115 (P. Pessi, Nokia, Editor) is DTS-07003 v.5.26.1; it specifies the detailed extensions to the TIPHONrequirements architecture, and protocols required for mobility and access to wireless networks within TIPHON and forthe interworking with mobile networks and wireless systems. This draft includes changes made in the WG7 draftingsession; new architecture material was added to Section 4. No other major changes were made.

WORKING GROUP 8, SECURITY

S. Fischer (Aravox) is the WG8 chair. The agenda is 20TD-013; the report of this meeting is 20TD-021.



STF action items include:

• Continued action on WI-08003, LI• Joint meeting with TC Security and 3GPP on LI

DTR-08002, THREAT ANALYSIS

20TD-072 (R. Gusenburger, RegTP, Editor) is DTR-08002 v.0.1.6; it presents requirements on approved security inthe context of TIPHON. This Technical Report provides a comprehensive analysis of security threats to TIPHON-compliant systems. It includes a definition of the security objectives, a description of the assets within eachTIPHON network element, a list of threats to the TIPHON network elements and procedures, a risk assessment, anda recommendation of the necessary security countermeasures. It includes the results of the latest Editors’ meeting,convened August 29-31 in Mainz, Germany; it was not approved at this meeting.

Note: Two editor meetings on Security Threat Analysis in Vienna produced the versions 0.1.6r1 and 0.1.6.r2. Thenext editors’ meeting will be held October 23-25, 2000 in Darmstadt, Germany. Version 0.1.7 will be created forTIPHON 21.

DTR-08003, LAWFUL INTERCEPT (LI)

The latest version of DTR-08003 is v.0.0.7; it was not approved.

20TD-034 (S. Cadzow, ETSI STF 114) is the TC Security LI IP Camarilla group report on IP interception, preparedduring its July meeting; it was proposed as input to the general consideration on work for lawful interception. Itwas submitted to the main TC Security LI September meeting in Zurich, and accepted. The format is that of anETSI guide; TC Security LI also accepted a new WI to publish the report in this format. TIPHON is represented inthis group through the STF and individual members.

20TD-122 (S. Cadzow, ETSI STF 114) discusses LI invocation in a TIPHON environment. There is no technicalimpediment to the LI work discussed in TIPHON. It may however be more appropriate to look again at the inferredresult of the argument in this paper that the internal LI interface is a myth which simplifies to the handover interfacedirectly. This would mean TIPHON takes the work of TC SEC WG LI as represented in ES 201 671 and ES 201158 and develops a profile of them the same as for other protocols. Of course this would show very quickly that theTIPHON capability set would be a super set of that defined in the TC SEC WG LI documents.

DTR-08004, INTEROPERABLE SECURITY PROFILES

DTR-08004 was progressed; the last version is 2.0.0.

A meeting with TC Security and 3GPP is scheduled to be held November 6-7, 2000, at ETSI, to resolve differencesover LI to advance WI-08003.

TIPHON #20 MEETING ROSTER, SEPTEMBER 18 – 22, 2000, V IENNA, AUSTRIA

Helmut Schink, Siemens TIPHON ChairRichard Swale, BT WG1 ChairJozef Vandenameele, Alcatel WG2 ChairRichard Brennan, GRIC Communications WG3 ChairJohnHorrocks, DTI WG4 ChairMike Buckley, Lucent WG5 ChairKlaus Sambor, Telekom Austria WG6 ChairTed Hatala, Motorola WG7 ChairStephen Fischer, Aravox Technologies WG8 Chair

Hosts: Telekom Austria, with co-sponsors Ericsson, Alcatel, Kapsch, Siemens, AOSA, Infonova and Jet2Web

ACACIA Frederique Aurouet [email protected] Jean Noel Rollet [email protected] Klemens Adler [email protected] Jan Bouwen [email protected] Maarten Buchli [email protected] Frank Peeters [email protected]



Alcatel Jozef Vandenameele [email protected] Peter Wagner [email protected] Stephen Fischer [email protected] Markus Spindler [email protected]/RegTP Reiner Gusenburger [email protected] Steve Roe [email protected] Simon Broom [email protected] Quin Collier [email protected] Anselm Martin [email protected] Richard Swale [email protected] Graham Travers [email protected] Scott Cadzow [email protected] Tony Anvoner [email protected]&Wireless Paul Rosbotham [email protected] Peter Fellows [email protected] Anitha Krishnamoorthy [email protected] John Hurlbert [email protected]. David Watts [email protected] Brendnan SayceCSELT Tiziana Greco [email protected] Telekom Bernd Adams [email protected] Telekom Harald Klaus [email protected] Telekom Ingmar Kliche [email protected] Telekom Thomas Scheerbarth [email protected] Telekom Ulrich Stradtmann [email protected] John Horrocks [email protected] Telec Silvain Schaffer [email protected] BV Paul Sijben [email protected] Jan Holm [email protected] Alberto Berrini [email protected] Helene Schmidt [email protected] Laurent Vreck [email protected] Anthony Wiles [email protected] Telecom Didier Becam [email protected] Francois Fischer [email protected] Peter Schmitting [email protected]örer Sandor Szilagyi [email protected] Richard Brennan [email protected] Gerhard Schmied [email protected] Herwart Wermescher [email protected] Matt Holdrege [email protected] Frank Fransen [email protected] Technologies Azfar Aslam [email protected] Technologies Mike Buckley [email protected] Technologies Milo Orsic [email protected] Ray Forbes [email protected] Mart Philip [email protected] James Dahl [email protected] Ted Hatala [email protected] Andy Mullan [email protected] Greg Bain [email protected] Hal Folts [email protected] Xhafer Krasniqi [email protected] James Yu [email protected] Carlo Neto [email protected] Pekka Pessi [email protected] Taito Peurasaari [email protected] Vilho Räisänen [email protected]



Nokia Marko Suoknuuti [email protected] Paul Coverdale [email protected] Jarle Kiil [email protected] Arne Steimoeggen [email protected] Naoto Makinae [email protected] Com David Wang [email protected] Olivier Girard [email protected]ÖFEG Richard Stastny [email protected] Martin Harris [email protected] Bird Nigel [email protected] Frank Derks [email protected] Fred Seigneur [email protected] Reinhard Walter [email protected] Joseph Abi Chebli [email protected] Bernhard Benedickt [email protected] Ernst Horvath [email protected] Günter Kleindl [email protected] Steve Moore [email protected] Hendrik Promies [email protected] Barbara Rudnick [email protected] Helmut Schink [email protected] Bernhard Spalt [email protected] Peter Tschulik [email protected] Johannes Winter [email protected] Mauri Pannari [email protected] Sampsamatti Tanner [email protected] James Lord [email protected] Jeff Hunter [email protected] Alan Clark [email protected] Hong Liu [email protected] Danmark Niels Knudsen [email protected]. Jouni Tanskanen [email protected] Italia Sonia Lalli [email protected] Austria Wolfgang Karner [email protected] Austria Klaus Sambor [email protected] Austria Andreas Steiner [email protected] Austria Hans Wallner [email protected] Austria Andreas Woratschek [email protected] Trond Ulseth [email protected] Althon Beukes [email protected] John Davis [email protected] Paul Inglesby [email protected] Joachim Pomy [email protected] Dieter Rohrdrommel [email protected] Nobuo Hasesaka [email protected] Masayuki Ohtaka [email protected] Yutaka Saito [email protected] Susumu Shirasawa [email protected] Hiroshi Sunaga [email protected] Piotr Wencel [email protected] Yuriy Kotenko [email protected] Guy ManorWorldCom Bernie Ku [email protected] Barkley-- Basur-- Helaabkioski-- Seyes



REPORT OF ETSI TM6 #19, ACCESS TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS ONMETALLIC CABLES, SEPTEMBER 18 – 22, 2000, VIENNA, AUSTRIA

In the absence of H. Frizlen (ETSI), M. Gindel (Telekom Austria), the TM6 Chair-elect for 2001, chaired thismeeting. TD-00 provides an abstract of the documents available on the ETSI TM6 server. TD-01 is the agenda.

B. Mattson (ETSI Secretariat) replaced O. van der Wiel as ETSI technical officer. A. Carrick (Ascom) is continuingas secretary. L. Magnone (CSELT, Telecom Italia group) cannot commit to continue into year 2001 as ADSLRapporteur. B. Waring (consultant for Lucent Technologies EMEA BV) may not continue into year 2001 as VDSLRapporteur.

ITU-T SG15/Q4 L IAISON

TD-02 (C. Hansen, Intel, VoDSL Ad hoc Chair) is a liaison from Q4/15 informing of its newly initiated project onvoice transport over DSL (G.voice). This project intends to evaluate new features and technologies that may berequired in future G series xDSL PHY layer standards. It is not anticipated that this project will develop any newITU-T Recommendations, but rather will act in directing any VoDSL-related requirements or features to the relevantPHY layer project. Q4/15 is currently working on a draft VDSL Recommendation and the next generation (i.e.,“bis” versions) of the ADSL and HDSL G. series Recommendations.

TD-04 (R. Stuart, Q4/15 Rapporteur) is a liaison from Q4/15 on the subject of RFI egress. It has come to theattention of Q4/15 that national and international RFI egress regulations may have an impact on the deployability ofDSL under certain conditions. Q4/15 understands that EN 55022 (CISPR22/CENELEC) and perhaps other standardsexist that address RFI egress issues for Europe, and believes that some groups within ETSI may be working onupdated RFI Recommendations. Q4/15 solicits TM6 assistance in identifying and contacting the appropriatestandards bodies, and in referencing the applicable documents, to correctly assess the impact of RFI egressregulations and standards on the deployability of equipment based on the various DSL Recommendations.

WD-09 provides the liaison from TM6 to ITU-T on the work relating to EMC and RFI egress within ETSI andCEN/CENELEC. The emission levels allowed around cables connected to xDSL systems are produced by IECCISPR 22, which is translated by CENELEC in an European Harmonized standard EN 55022 which is currentlyunder revision. In addition to this standard, there are national regulations in preparation in the UK and Germany thatintroduce limits that differ from CISPR 22, as their use is restricted for dispute resolution (“enforcement standard”).Other active committees in this area are ETSI TC ERM WG EMC which produced EN 300 386 (EMCrequirements), a joint ETSI/CENELEC working group recently formed to formulate immunity and emissionrequirements based on a common approach for CATV, power line and telecommunications networks, and CENELECTC209, TC210, TC215 and SC205A.

DSL FORUM LIAISON

TD-09 (G. Young, BT, DSL Forum Technical Committee Chair) is a liaison from the DSL Forum on the subject oftesting and interoperability activities, and noise models. The MoU between ETSI and the DSL Forum has beenrecently completed; the legal basis for a non-restricted cooperation has been achieved. As a first support for TM6’stesting and interoperability activities, TD-09 presents the relationship of DSL Forum testing and interoperabilityworking group documents.

DSL Forum is developing test plans for Annex B of G.992.1 (G.dmt); they solicit comments from ETSI about theirinterest in organizing plugfests for Annex B, and on the performance (dynamic interoperability) requirements that arenot in the G.992.1 Recommendation. DSL Forum notes that while the ETSI bake-off events appear to be similar tothe DSL Forum plugfest events, they differ in that the ETSI bake-offs are to improve specifications and the DSLForum plugfests focus on improving and demonstrating interoperability.

DSL Forum is starting its work on G.shdsl interoperability testing; a test plan is in progress. DSL Forum requestsof TM6 whether ETSI is interested in starting work on improving SDSL standards to enable system interoperability,and which activities will be taken to achieve this goal. DSL Forum also solicits information from TM6 on therecent work on DSL noise models.

FSAN LIAISON

WD-06 is an informal liaison from D. Clark (BT); FS-VDSL, a subcommittee of FSAN met in Berlin; the nextFSAN workshop will be in Japan. It was decided that no updates are required to the FSAN VDSL, SDSL and ADSL



noise models. The major part of the meeting was given over to discussions with Telia on their proposal for aflexible (Fx) VDSL plan. There was no agreement to include the Fx plan in ETSI work.

SDSL

S. Schmoll (Alcatel) is the Rapporteur for WI DTS/TM-06011S; in his absence, M. Kimpe (Adtran) chaired theSDSL session. WD-02 is the proposed work plan for the SDSL session.

OPTIONAL ASYMMETRIC PSDS

TD-16 (R. Franco, Tioga) presents power considerations for an optional asymmetric SDSL mask that is compatiblewith FDD ADSL over ISDN. This was presented in Montreux in February – March (TD-18; E. Shusterman, O.Neulender, Orckit, see CSR 11.4). As was shown, at high rates the already accepted masks for SDSL severelydegrade the performance of the FDD ADSL over ISDN upstream. The power of the proposed mask at downstream isonly 14.5 dBm, compared to 16.25 dBm and 14.75 dBm, which are defined in the ETSI standard Part 2. Thiscontribution shows that, in worst cases, the power consumption of a line driver while applying the proposed mask isless than the power consumption obtained if using the accepted asymmetrical masks. It also expands the marginresults given in TD-18 and adds results for noise models A and C according to FSAN NEXT and FEXT couplingmodels. The performances achieved are similar to those agreed asymmetric masks and margin increases if usingFDD ADSL over ISDN as a part of the FSAN noise model.

Discussion considered whether a new study point should be created. It was agreed that the problem should be clearlystated before solutions are proposed. The point was made that if there are too many optional PSD masks, operatorsget confused.

EUROPEAN INSERTION LOSS

TD-18 (G. Schmid, T. Nordstrom, FTW Austria) describes FTW’s re-evaluation of the SDSL test loop insertionlosses. FTW attempted to verify, with the FSAN xDSL simulator, the suggested insertion loss numbers in thecurrent SDSL draft; the resulting margins were found to always be above the target values. However, for some bit-rates and some loops, the values seem too pessimistic, but maybe this is acceptable. The FTW simulator isavailable for public use; the URL is http://www.xdsl.ftw.at/xdslsimu/. This paper was accepted for information.

WARM START

TD-41 (S. Krause, Infineon Technologies) proposes a warm start activation procedure for SDSL systems that canenter a deactivated state in the absence of communication. This warm start capability is defined as the ability of thetransceivers to emerge from a reduced power state to a full transmission state in less than 0.5 sec. This fasteractivation is due to previously stored information on the transmission environment; the purpose of the reduced powerstate is to allow power saving during idle periods and egress noise reduction towards other systems sharing the samebinder. The activation sequence is a full handshake procedure, which shortens activation time. To be backwardcompatible with the SDSL cold start, the activation signals are 2-point data with DFE-equalization. It was affirmedthat this proposal will not require changes to G.hs; however, to some TM6 members this is debatable.

TD-42 (S. Krause, Infineon Technologies) proposes a wake-up signal for the SDSL-warm start that gives thetransceivers the ability to emerge from the reduced power state to the start of the warm-start activation sequence.This wake-up signal is optimized with respect to the robustness of the system and the probability of false alarms;the wake-up tones are based on the G.hs tones of the 4 kHz family. It was noted that the possibility of nearby line-coupled tones should not be overlooked. Possibly Q4/15 might have some concerns with this proposal due to thedifficulty in identifying in all cases the time difference between short tones (warm start) and long tones (G.hs coldstart). Warm start is still for further study in the edition 2 of Part 2. It was noted that this seems to be beyond thescope of warm start. Concerns were also expressed about clock recovery.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ETSI SDSL AND ITU G.SHDSL

TD-03 (R. Stuart, Q4/15 Rapporteur) is a liaison from Q4/15 on issues of commonality between G.shdsl (G.991.2)and SDSL. Q4/15 understands that TM6 has agreed to use the G.994.1 (G.hs) Recommendation for the preactivationsequence of SDSL, and has further agreed to point to the Recommendation directly from SDSL. Q4/15 has thereforebegun to look into ways to accommodate that reference. In the opinion of Q4/15, there are three ways that thereference could be supported, specifically:• SDSL could directly use the code points that have already been defined for G.shdsl Annex B.



• SDSL could be specified by the addition of a small set of additional code points within the overall G.shdsl codepoint structure.

• SDSL could be specified by a completely different set of code points.

Q4/15 believes that the first option is highly preferable, but it implies that the two Recommendations, i.e., ITUG.991.2 (G.shdsl) Annex B Recommendation and the ETSI SDSL specification, must be operationally identical.However, some relatively minor discrepancies exist between the two Recommendations. Q4/15 requests TM6’s helpin identifying both the areas of conflict and the appropriate solutions as quickly as possible, especially in light of thescheduled Decision of G.991.2 at the February 2001 SG15 meeting and the scheduled completion of TS 101 524-3(the merged version of the SDSL document).

TD-11 (M. Kimpe, Adtran) proposes options for harmonizing ETSI SDSL and ITU G.shdsl. Although efforts havebeen made to keep ETSI SDSL and ITU G.shdsl Annex B aligned, some small differences exist. Most of thedifferences are due to the fact that the text of SDSL Part 1 was frozen in April 2000, while G.shdsl continued to bemodified. This contribution lists the differences and proposes four possible options to harmonize bothspecifications, and proposes that TM6 decide which is the most suitable:

1. Replace annex B of G.shdsl by a pointer to the SDSL specification.2. Replace the SDSL specification by a pointer to G.shdsl Annex B3. Align the documents in time. By approving the next revision of SDSL in March 2001, just after the expected

approval of G.shdsl in February 2001, Revision 2 of SDSL and Annex B of G.shdsl could be aligned. The workin ETSI would involve resolving the differences listed in the contribution.

4. Align both specifications as much as possible and add an entire tree of code points to G.hs. Currently, two codepoint trees are available: G.shdsl Annex A, and G.shdsl Annex B; the third would be ETSI SDSL. This wouldallow ETSI SDSL to remain completely independent of G.shdsl. Code points in G.hs can be added at any ITUmeeting.

In discussion, it was suggested to replace what is Europe-relevant by a pointer to the ETSI document. A workinggroup can draft a document giving editorial changes to the G.shdsl to align it with the European text.

Based on discussion in an ad hoc (WD-07) on aligning SDSL and G.shdsl, WD-23 was created. WD-23 is the draftliaison to Q4/15 noting TM6’s intention to try to resolve any differences with G.shdsl. Those differences thatcannot be resolved will be listed in an informative section of the SDSL document (merger of the two published partsof the SDSL specification). For the combined SDSL document, it is agreed to use the existing G.hs code-pointstructure of G.shdsl Annex B with the possible addition of new ETSI specific code-points, if necessary, within theexisting G.shdsl code-point structure.

RF Ingress

TD-30 (R. Williamson, Nortel Networks) discusses RF ingress testing. The description of the Broadcast RF noisegenerator [G5] in RTS/TM-06006 (European ADSL based on T1.413) is incomplete in the description of themodulation of the individual carriers. An appropriate description will need careful consideration if it is to berepeatable and realistic; this contribution suggests the requirements for the modulation. However, such a realisticand repeatable test is needed now. In its absence, and for the interim, Nortel recommends that sinusoidal signs beused for each carrier, thus bringing the test in line with ITU G.996.1. This contribution also includes a proposal foran informative annex on a refinement of the ITU test method. TM6 considered the creation of a study point based onthis contribution.

TD-35 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies) proposes a worst case RFI ingress model. It uses data from the ITU-RInternational Frequency List on frequencies, transmit power, and geographic distribution of radio stations todetermine the electromagnetic field strength; it then calculates the ingress noise that is coupled onto the cable todevelop a realistic RFI ingress model.

TD-36 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies) discusses the electromagnetic field environment in Europe. Access wirepairs can pick up radiated emissions that may become sources of interference to DSL systems. To determine whethera threat exists due to coupled voltage into xDSL access cables, models of the distribution of electrical field strengthare required; this contribution presents such a model, for both typical and worst case conditions. The model takesinto account the assigned frequencies, transmit power, and geographic distribution of radio transmitters within theband of DSL systems.

TD-37 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies) studies the frequency dependence of the balance of wire pairs. It comparesand evaluates several studies and models, and proposes a frequency-dependent worst case cable balance model.



TD-38r1 (R. Stolle, Infineon Technologies) discusses electric field radiated by a twisted pair cable (RFI egress). TheRFI egress issue requires basic knowledge of the relationship between a given current distribution I(l) on a twistedpair communication-cable and the electromagnetic field E, H generated by that current distribution at a given distanced. This problem is reciprocal to the RFI ingress issue, which requires knowledge of the relationship between adisturbing high-frequency electric field E in the surroundings of a twisted pair cable, and the terminal voltage of thatcable on a 135 ohm resistor. This contribution provides the theoretical background to the field theoretical problem,and supplies simple yet accurate approximation formulae for the calculation of the field quantities E and H.Reporter’s note: Excellent piece of work.

TD-39 (R. Stolle, Infineon technologies) discusses coupling of an electromagnetic field into a twisted pair cable(RFI ingress). It derives worst-case approximation formulae for the calculation of the terminal voltage of a twistedpair link exposed to a disturbing electromagnetic field. It presents a scalable array of curves that provides the RFIpower on a terminating 135 Ohms resistor.

A break out session was held, with twenty-two members attending, chaired by K. Foster (BT). It was agreed toharmonize the test methods and levels for the different TM6 xDSL systems. Tone levels had to be defined and thedependency on modulation was discussed. The following levels in TD-35 were confirmed (333 kHz, -90 dBm) and(387 kHz, -85 dBm). There is a general lowering of ingress levels in the band between LW and MW broadcastfrequencies. The currently agreed set of test frequencies (repeated in TD-35) was re-affirmed. Actual measurementsare required to confirm the theoretical model and prediction of test levels, and also the number of significant tonesobserved at typical worst-case locations. In particular, Nortel and BT will consult their network measurementdatabases for the UK. Input is required from other European network operators. A plenary discussion of the figurein TD-30 (which shows the setup appropriate for measuring downstream performance at the ATU-R) and what to dowith it was seen to be necessary. The figure shows a splitter, it will have to be modified to accommodate SDSL.WD-19 is the report of the ad hoc group.

The following way forward was proposed:

Relevant study points in the SDSL and ADSL projects exist for doing further work on RFI ingress levels.Contributions would be written with respect to these existing study points, which are on a) levels, b) modulationand c) test methods and targeted at both ADSL and SDSL projects:

a) Levels: Network operators to review the DM power levels for the other 8 out of 10 frequencies given in TD-35 andbe prepared to reach closure on this issue at the next TM6 meeting. New proposals for common mode levels arerequired.

b) Modulation: Review TD-30 (Nortel) and the comments from KPN on the modulation to be chosen for VDSL RFIingress (TS101 270-1). Seek harmonization in approach.

c) Test methods: Review the test method given in TD-30 (Nortel) and TD-35 (Infineon). Confirm test method aftermaking decisions on levels and modulation methods.

RF EGRESS

TD-40 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies; M. Kimpe, Adtran; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens; J. Girardeau, Intel) assertsthat RFI egress concern all DSLs; it should therefore be considered as a separate work item. Furthermore, asdiscussion of radiation limits and the implications of RFI egress are not an issue of TM6, it proposes that otherstandards bodies deal with these questions. It also proposes that for DSL systems deployed in Europe, the RFemission limits and measurement technique be according to the European Standard EN 55022(CISPR22/CENELEC). The RF emission limits will need to be reconsidered as soon as the emerging EuropeanStandard of ETSI/CENELEC is available.

WD-10 gives the scope of a new work item for SDSL gathering the left over from previous study points. WD-22gives the actual text of the new revised work item, Revision of combined part 1 and part 2 SDSL specification, forSDSL. Reporter’s comment: This is a catch-all work item which will die out.

SDSL/ANAI

TD-13 (M. Meninger, Czech Telecom) discusses dynamic time slot allocation to PSTN/ISDN channels in SDSLframe. Current work in TM6 has considered only permanent assignment of SDSL frame time slots; dynamicassignment enables the increasing of the total throughput of SDSL line in mixed STM – ATM operation, andimproves its spectral efficiency. Time slot assignment may be managed by a set of six defined EOC messages.This solution is proposed for inclusion in the SDSL living list, and in the section dealing with the frame structure



and multiplexing in any future upgrade of the SDSL standard. If this solution is accepted, it will be necessary tocheck and optimize the set of EOC messages used for controlling this EOC communication sector.

TD-27 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens) discusses TPS-TC for synchronous ISDNBRA. At its May meeting, TM6 provisionally agreed to adopt the technique for synchronous ISDN transport overSDSL for an application-dependent Annex (TD-10, CSR Vol. 11.6). At the following ITU-T meetings, Q4/15agreed to adopt this technique for synchronous ISDN transport as an annex to the G.shdsl standard. The dual bearerprinciple of the mixed ISDN and broadband transport was generalized, and a special annex was added to the standard.This contribution proposes to adopt the text of the TPS-TC for synchronous ISDN BRA Annex of G.991.2 (HC-R15©, CSR Vol. 11.8).

TD-28 (D. Daecke, Infineon Technologies; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens) discusses Dual Bearer TPS-TC mode. At itsJune meeting in Antwerp, Q4/15 agreed to generalize the dual bearer principle from the ISDN TPS-TC annex, whichallows mixed ISDN and broadband transport. At the following August meeting in Huntsville, Q4/15 added anotherannex for Dual Bearer TPS-TC to the G.shdsl standard. The dual bearer mode allows the support of two concurrentTPS-TCs for a variety of applications. This contribution proposes to adopt the text of the Dual Bearer TPS-TCAnnex of G.991.2 (HC-R15©).

VDSL

B. Waring (Lucent) is the Rapporteur. WD-04 is the work plan for the VDSL meeting.

PART 1: FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

TD-07 (B. Waring, Lucent, Rapporteur) is the Issues List for VDSL Part 1. It contains issues raised at the TM6meetings in Edinburgh (September 1999), Amsterdam (December 1999), Montreux (February 2000), and Helsinki(May 2000) which need to be addressed in the next revision to the VDSL requirements specification (TS 101 270-1).It also acts as a placeholder for on-going Part 2 issues.

PART 2: TRANSCEIVER SPECIFICATIONS REVISED

TS 101 270-2 (VDSL Transceiver Specifications) has been approved. The new work item, which revises version1.2.1 will be worked under RTS/TM-06023.

BAND ALLOCATION

TD-26 (TKC, Austria; RegTP, Germany; OFTEL, Great Britain; NPT, Norway; PTS, Sweden; OFCOM,Switzerland) contains a proposal for spectral planning in VDSL. It provides the views of some European regulatorson the impact of the VDSL standard on the spectral planning process. Their position is the following:• The VDSL standard should be flexible, to reflect possible differing deployment scenarios in different regions or

countries.• The VDSL standard should be as future-proof as possible.• The VDSL standard for broadband systems should be available as soon as possible.

These regulators see no reason to exclude any of the proposed frequency plans from the standard. Consequently, theyrequest that all three frequency plans, i.e., 997, 998, and Fx, that are accepted in ITU-T be included in the ETSIVDSL standard.

TD-43 (G Okvist, Telia AB) proposes that the Fx spectrum usage plan and the power back-off be included in theVDSL Part 2 specification. This would align the ETSI VDSL specification with the ITU-T, in accordance withETSI directives.

TD-45 (G. Okvist, Telia AB) proposes text for the inclusion of the Fx plan in the VDSL Part 2 specification. Fourvalues are: 4.25 MHz, 6.0 MHz, 7.5 MHz, and 10.125 MHz. These correspond, respectively, to a symmetricexchange case, a 997-like compromise case, a cabinet scenario, and a symmetric case.

TD-08 (N. King, Infineon Technologies) analyzes the implications of a flexible band allocation for a competitivemarket of unbundled broadband telecommunications access, i.e., the Fx plan. It concludes that the result of aflexible plan would be to balkanize the broadband access market of any country that adopts it, which would result ina network incapable of reliably providing any particular VDSL-based service. It proposes an alternative to thisapproach: creation of a single compromise band allocation within each country that allows reasonable range for allexpected services, both symmetric and asymmetric. This approach was taken in North America, with the selectionof a plan that provides good reach for the most valued asymmetric service as well as to one of the most valued



symmetric services. Such an approach compels every service provider to operate under the same set of constraints,and prevents the first mover from narrowing the range of services available to each consumer. It also removes theburden on regulatory bodies of having to determine on a case-by-case basis what the “fair” value of Fx should be.

TD-19 (T. Nordström, FTW) describes FTW findings regarding mixing the suggested four-band plans up to 12 MHzfor VDSL. It finds that for services optimized for asymmetrical services (997 and Fx=10.125), the high-endasymmetrical services are the worst hit, while for the more symmetrical services (997 and Fx=6) the high-endsymmetrical services are the ones worst hit. If a plan is optimized for a certain service, that service will be thebottleneck, and is the most susceptible to crosstalk from other frequency plans; this is clearly shown for the serviceS3 (for 997 and Fx=6) and for the service A4 (for 998 and Fx=10.125). Fx plans are in no way more protected fromdegradation than the 997 and 998 plans. The 997 and 998 plans have 2.3 MHz overlap, while the two Fx plans have4.125 MHz, and in both cases very little capacity remains in the overlapping bands because of NEXT. The moralfrom this study is “Thou shalt not mix frequency plans in the same bundle.”

Spec i f i ca t ion Changes

TD-25 (V. Oksman, Broadcom, on behalf of VDSL Coalition) contains editorial comments, corrections (Annex 1),and suggestions for the ETSI VDSL Transceiver Specification document, TS 101 270-2 v.1.1.1.

TD-48 (S. Schelstraete, Alcatel, VDSL Alliance) lists a number of proposed changes for the multi-carrier sections ofthe ETSI VDSL specification. Since the last ETSI meeting, work on the T1E1 draft standard has resulted in differenttext and figures in both specifications. The changes proposed in this contribution are based on the work that wasdone on the T1E1 draft standard for VDSL; the intention is to align the two documents.

TD-49 (M. Jong-Hyuck Park, Samsung, VDSL Alliance) presents a proposal for MCM-based VDSL handshake. Ituses the 4.3125 kHz signalling family and the duplex transmission mode. For the G.vdsl mode of operation, theinitial handshake transmission includes a new carrier set to be defined in Table 2-1. The proposal is based on ITURecommendation G.994.1 (G.hs). It presents the newly added code points, the description of VDSL specificparameters, and the handshake procedures.

TD-50 (S. Schelstraete, Alcatel, VDSL Alliance) proposes a value for the width of the transition band in the out-of-band PSD mask.

TD-23 (R. Verbin, Tioga Technologies) suggests some editorial corrections to the current DMT part of the VDSLspecification to clarify some definitions related to the PSD mask.

POWER BACK OFF

TD-06 (J. Cook, BT) proposes that the general framework for upstream power back-off agreed by ITU SG15 at itsmost recent meeting in Huntsville, Canada (July 31 – Aug. 4, 2000) be incorporated into the draft VDSL transceiverspecification [TS 101 270-2 v.1.1.1 (2000-05)] as the only agreed method basis for upstream power back off. Theagreement foresees the definition of a reference receive PSD (PSDREF) at the VTU-O. The VTU-R has to adapt itstransmit PSD so that its receive PSD (at the VTU-O) never exceeds this reference PSD. It is specified that thereference receive PSD should be independent of line length, noise model, and loop type. Also, if possible, thisreference PSD should be a single function (world-wide), although regional dependence will be considered if this turnsout to be necessary. The shape of the reference PSD is not defined so far, nor is there a precise mechanism toconstruct it.

TD-44 (S. Schelstraete, Alcatel) discusses some of the open points of TD-06 that were left for further study; it alsosuggests some additions and improvements to the agreement to make the PBO method more robust.

TD-47 (S. Schelstraete, Alcatel) presents a study of optimal reference PSD for VDSL UPBO. First, it attempts tofind which set of services can be protected simultaneously without causing excessive degradation to any of theprotected services. Second, it considers the possibility of using a single reference receive PSD for the variousenvironments, consisting of different loop types and noise models. It concludes that a single function leads toconsiderable degradation of the loop reach for the protected services; it suggests the use of regionally dependentfunctions.

After some discussion, including a short ad-hoc discussion, it was agreed that the text of TD-06r1 (which aligns withthe ITU-T), and some modifications including the addition of text in §5.2 (iii), would replace the existing text.



APPROVAL OF DRAFT SPECIFICATION

N o i s e

TD-14 (BT, DT, FTW, University of Edinburgh) gives notice that British Telecom, Edinburgh University, DeutscheTelekom, and FTW have reached agreement on the appropriate models to be used to represent, in a statistical manner,impulse noise inter-arrival times, durations, amplitudes, and frequency characteristics. The complete model will becapable of generating realistic impulse noise, as is found on xDSL lines. The contributors intend to present the fullxDSL impulse noise model, including appropriate parameter settings, at the next TM6 meeting; it will form theproposed basis of Appendix C.1 of TM6(98)10, Generic performance tests for long range xDSL systems (R. van denBrink, KPN, Rapporteur).

TD-52 (Alcatel) specifies the short-term stationary behavior of Q-mode for VDSL. In ETSI the state diagram of theVDSL contains an optional dynamic power saving state. Although the implementation of this Q-mode is notrequired in any VTU-R or VTU-C, the crosstalk of the Q-mode will probably exist in the network, and receiversshould be made immune against the short-term stationary VDSL Q-mode. Therefore it is mandatory to specify thenon-stationary behavior of the VDSL Q-mode, against which any VTU can then defend itself.

TD-46 (S. Schelstraete, Alcatel) investigates the possible upper bounds that can be derived for FEXT in a distributedenvironment. The FEXT experienced by a VDSL modem in a distributed environment will depend on the positionsof all other active modems. To evaluate the upstream capacity, certain assumptions must be made about thedistributed topology to be able to obtain results. Since little or no data are available about typical distributedtopologies, it would be useful to be able to eliminate the explicit dependence on the parameters of the distributedtopology. This contribution proposes an upper bound that holds for both short and long lines.

WD-12 (W. Henkel, FTW) provides comment on the energy/length relation of non-stationary impulse-noise. It is aresponse to a question from members of TM6 at the May Helsinki meeting after the presentation of TD-55, Someresults of the investigations of BT impulse-noise data (W, Henkel, FTW; T. Kessler, T-Nova Deutsche Telekom). Itcontains results for the relation between the length and the energy of impulses for one special set provided by BT; itshows that the relation is almost linear. It was decided to hold an intermediate meeting to consider such relations forthe upcoming impulse-noise model.

A new work item was created; the agreement is as follows: proceed and finalize Part 2 with two band plans. In thenew work item, a third plan would be established with definition of the service requirements and the Fx definition.The Rapporteur for this work item will be K. Starnberger (Infineon Technologies). The content of the new workitem is contained in WD-28.

A second work item, contained in WD-20, is to prepare revision to the VDSL Part 2 document; eventually, the twonew work items could result in a merged document.

During the plenary TM6 meeting, the Swedish operator (Telia) submitted a declaration (WD-XX) stating Telia’sopposition to the progression of VDSL Part 2 document to vote by the TM committee.

M. Gindel (Telekom Austria) decided to forward the VDSL specification to TM, despite of the objections from Telia.BT considered that the text that Telia wanted in the minutes was libelous and asked that the ETSI lawyers beconsulted. It was suggested that it would be appropriate to add another sentence stating that others did not agree withTelia’s text. In the end, Telia changed their text to something a little less inflammatory. (Reporter’s note: it ispossible that there will be more fighting at the TM committee. Ericsson said that they would oppose the approvalof VDSL.)

ADSL

WD-05 contains the work plan of the ADSL session.

TD-32 (O. Neulander, Tioga Technologies) addresses SP 1 of the ADSL living list: performance objectives forADSL over ISDN. TD-29 from the TM6 meeting in Villach, Austria, February 1999 (ADSL over POTS/ISDN:support for revision of TS 101 388 v1.1.1 and ETR 328 ed.1, and proposal for performance and objectives criteria;L. Magnone, Telecom Italia, CSR Vol 10.3) pointed out that an adequate set of transmission tests for ADSL overISDN has not yet been provided in the framework of the ADSL TS [2]. This contribution (TD-32) addresses thisissue. It presents performance objectives for ADSL over ISDN operating under FSAN noise models A, B, and C,which are realistic noise models for testing ADSL over ISDN.



The point was raised that this contribution should clarify whether it is for FDD or for echo canceled systems. TM6asked the contributors to pursue the good work, add a few more frequencies up- and downstream, use the normalizedloop as done in SDSL, and then give the distance as an information element. Those objectives are a mixture ofsimulations and actual results; they could be different from one implementation to another. Because crosstalk noiseis higher than was assumed in the past, provisioned bitrates are often lower than the minimum values in the ADSLstandard. Fortunately most (all?) ADSL transceivers have no trouble supporting the lower bit rates. WD-15provides the additional bit rates to be added: downstream 512 kbit/s, 768 kbit/s, 1544 kbit/s, 6144 kbit/s andupstream 64 kbit/s.

TD-33 (J. Binkofski, Vacuumschmelze GmbH; M. Löffelholz, T-Nova Deutsche Telekom) provides a text proposalfor the specification of the ISDN-Splitter for the draft RTS/TM-06006, ADSL European specific requirements.

TD-12 (B. Martenson, Ericsson on behalf of ETSI AT-Analog) is draft TR 101 728 v.0.0.6, Study for thespecification of the low pass section of POTS/ADSL splitters. Technology developments, e.g., fast digital signalprocessors, facilitate the launch of applications like ADSL, corresponding to the ever-increasing user demand forbroadband services. With ADSL technology, POTS and broadband data services are delivered to the user via a singlecopper pair. POTS uses the low frequency band, typically 0 - 4 kHz, and data services use 26 kHz - 1100 kHz. Thesignals are separated by a device called a “splitter.” This TR covers aspects of the splitter that relate to the POTSservices. A more recent development, dealt with in this TR, is a so-called distributed filter, which is a low passfilter (microfilter) connected to each TE, instead of one common splitter for the installation.

WD-16r1 contains the response liaison to TC AT. Distributed filters is outside the scope of the present work inTM6. TM6 requested that all references to distributed filters be contained in a single chapter (e.g., Chapter 6 as it isnow) so it can be noted as not applicable. Concern was raised that the current proposed minimum LongitudinalConversion Loss values specified in table 5 are too low. TM6 recommends raising the values to equal or greaterthan those specified for the ADSL transceiver/modem (reference G.992.1).

TD-34 (Tioga Technologies) addresses SP 16 of the ADSL living list; it proposes a downstream mask for FDDADSL over ISDN. This mask is used with the standard ADSL over ISDN upstream mask. In addition, it proposesperformance objectives for FDD ADSL over ISDN using the proposed mask. It selects FSAN noise models A, B,and C, which are realistic noise models for the ADSL noise environment, and provides performance objectives underthese noise models.

TD-51 (P. Reusens, Alcatel) shows the complete equivalence of the ETSI tones and G.hs. In the ANSI ADSLabove POTS, the activation is based on single tones; TM6 adapted the set of tones for ADSL over ISDN. Later, theITU converted the ANSI activation to the more robust G.hs recommendation. Also, the ETSI variant for ADSLover ISDN was correctly transformed in so called “code points” in G.hs. Because G.hs correctly replaces the ETSItone-based activation for ADSL over ISDN, TM6 can safely point to the ITU work in this matter.

TD-31 (R. Williamson, Nortel Networks) discusses POTS interference tests. ITU G.996.1 (G.test) contains a POTSinterference test to evaluate the performance of DSL systems in the presence of POTS signaling. The POTSsignaling performed consists of on-off hook activity with and without ringing, as well as loop-disconnect signaling.However, this test is very vague and lacks firm objectives and procedures. For instance, it specifies the use of“actual telephones” for performing the tests. Experience has shown that such telephones are very variable. Thiscontribution recommends that ETSI include a POTS interference test in RTS/TM 06006. It suggests text forconsideration, and specifies the conditions of the test as well as the result for the tests. It proposes a fullerdescription of the telephone circuit, which will lead to repeatable results. Finally, it describes, for inclusion in aninformative annex, a circuit that has been adopted for use in TR 101 728, the POTS splitter specification, for largesignal testing of hook activity; it has the advantage of being a balanced circuit, which emulates a worst-casetelephone very reliably and repeatably.

TD-53 (G. Reina, Tioga) proposes a definition and specification for non-stationary transmissions. Legacy equipment(ADSL) is highly sensitive to non-stationary transmissions; a non-stationary cross-talker may degrade performancesof legacy ADSL by more than 1 km. Development of a specification that will restrict the level of non-stationarytransmissions on the copper plant is crucial to protect against this degradation. This contribution proposes a way todefine a requirement on the stationarity of the signal; it leaves the exact threshold values for further discussion. Thisdocument was deferred to Spectrum Management; it was discussed there at length. It was placed as a study point forSpectrum Management Part 2 Point 2.

A modification has been requested of the G.992.1 Annex A ADSL PSD mask to increase the upstream bandwidth byusing the bottom end carriers when it is not required to support a POTS service under ADSL. WD-01, ADSL PSD



mask for operation without underlying ISDN (L. Humphrey, Nortel Networks), asks that the same modification beapplied to the G.992.1 Annex B PSD mask for cases when support of an ISDN service under ADSL is not required,in countries where ADSL over ISDN is deployed. It proposes an additional mask for use in countries, such as theUK, where the same band is available for use upstream, but with tighter spectral constraints and some deploymentreach restrictions. This document was accepted; it was assigned to study point 6. The title was changed to “AllDigital Loops” to align with ITU-T.

ANAI

The ANAI rapporteur and coordinator is A. Profumo (Italtel). WD17 is the report of the Access NetworksArchitecture and Interfaces (ANAI) meeting.

VOICE OVER DSL

DSL Forum TR-036, “Requirements for Voice over DSL,” was reviewed. It was agreed to generate a new workitem, Access Network requirements for the in-band support of Voice and Narrow Band data communications overDSL. A liaison was sent to SPAN9,explaining the goals of the work to be carried out in TM6 WG ANAI and the possible boundaries and interactionsbetween TM6 and SPAN9.

S-BUS STAR CONFIGURATION FOR BRA

TD-20 (Czech Technical University in Prague) addresses the issue relevant to the amendment of EN 50098-1(customer premises cabling … ISDN BA), raised in November ‘99 by a liaison from CENELEC. The contributionconfirms the results shown in previous contributions (TD-34, Helsinki May 2000), which indicate a degradation ofthe performances for S-bus Star configuration with respect to the proper bus configuration. However in most of thecases when using Category 5 cables to implement the star configuration, despite of the reduction of the noisemargin, the system still works. Further analyses will be carried out and results presented at the next TM6 meetingin November in Monterey (California).

SDSL ATM TC ISSUES

TD-13 (Czech Telecom) proposes dynamic time slot assignment to PSTN/ISDN channels in the SDSL frame. Itwas agreed to include a new study point in the DTS/TM-06015 living list, specifically addressing this issue. Duringthe discussion it emerged that additional work is required to define the transport of signalling channel, especially forPOTS and relevant services, over an STM channel. It was decided to outline such issues in the liaison towardSPAN9 (above), as such issues are again relevant to the more general Voice Over DSL issue.

TD-24 (Infineon) concerns EOC messages relevant to SDSL ATM-TC status, and reports the status reached in thecorresponding ITU-T document (G.shdsl) on the same issue. The following was agreed :

• To choose, for the values of a and d parameters, pertinent to cell delineation, the values 7 and 6 respectively.• To choose, for the number of contiguous frames, during which the condition of OCD anomaly is present, and

required to declare LCD defect, the value 9.• To align the relevant portion of Living List Study Point 2-3 to the ITU-T text, however outlining that some

additional improvements have to be brought to the ITU-T text.

Several delegates, mostly representing network operators, noticed that the indicator bits used for Loss of CellDelineation (LCD) Failure reporting do not allow a way to build up consistent availability statistics (for examplebased on the Severely Errored Seconds measurements) , which take into account the duration of the failure. Themeeting agreed to liase back to ITU-T, outlining the problem and asking ITU-T to find a solution to it: a viablesolution is certainly based on a regular (e.g., every 1 second) autonomous generation of messages, as was proposedin the previous ETSI TM6 liaison to ITU-T, even keeping the ITU-T proposed information field lay-out for theOAM message. It was also noticed surprisingly, that although Alcatel representatives agreed upon the TM6 liaisontext during the previous TM6 meeting, the new ITU-T text was based on a different Alcatel proposal.

TD-28 (D. Daecke, Infineon) addresses the Dual Bearer Mode and reports the text recently agreed in ITU-T. After athorough review, it was agreed to include ITU-T text in the 06015 Living list Study Point 2-1, apart from the finalsections, which include some unclear definitions and contradictions. It was then further agreed to modify suchsections in order to have clearer definitions, and to liase the modified text back to ITU-T.



SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

The plan for the Spectrum Management session is contained in WD-03.

The second edition for Spectrum Management Part 1 will be published in June, 2001; contributions to Monterey(November 27- December 1, 2000) will be taken into account. The first edition is being published under number TR101 830-1. A new work item (WD-13) has been opened to revise it to edition 2.

DEFINITIONS

TD-21 (P. Kyees, Paradyne) offers a definition of peak amplitude. Peak amplitude is not unambiguously defined inthe current draft of work item DTS/TM-06016, Spectral management on metallic access networks; Part 1:Definitions and signal library. As a result, the term has been applied inconsistently to the different types of signalsin the library. In some cases, the peak amplitude as it has been used may not be measurable. This contributionproposes a consistent definition of peak amplitude that lends itself to measurement and is appropriate in the contextof spectral management. It also proposes that the peak amplitudes for each of the signals described in the draft bereviewed, as necessary, to ensure that the values remain consistent with the proposed definition.

SIGNAL LIBRARY

TD-15 (R. Jonsson, Conexant) proposes specific text for the SDSL section of the current version of Part 1 of thespectral management document, Section 8.5, previously identified as for further study. The proposed text is based onETSI SDSL and ITU draft Recommendation G.991.2 (G.shdsl), where appropriate.

TD-06, Modification to power back-off text (D. Clarke, BT) was covered during the VDSL session.

TD-05 (I. Johansson, H. Lundberg, Telia Research AB) contains a sub-category of the PCM/HDB3 system deployedin Sweden. It characterizes the electrical signals of a variant of transmission systems for a data rate of 2.048 Mbit/s,transmitted over two copper pairs with each pair carrying a simplex data signal, HDB3 line code (corresponding toITU-T G.703). The system can be remote fed. This is proposed for inclusion in DTR/TM-06016.

TD-22 (P. Kyees, Paradyne) proposes an additional sub-category for SM specification: Proprietary.SymDSL.CAP/QAM signals. This sub-category covers signals generated by proprietary DSL transmission equipment on asingle wire pair. The signals are line code independent, but derived from CAP/QAM based signals similar to thosedefined in “Proprietary.SymDSL .CAP.A::Fn” and “Proprietary.SymDSL.CAP.B::Fn.” This is proposed forinclusion in the draft of work item DTS/TM-06016. This category supports CAP/QAM implementations other thanthat covered by those signals.

VARIOUS

TD-53 (G. Reina, Tioga) proposes a definition and specification for non-stationary transmissions; this was coveredin the ADSL session.

TD-29 (R. Williamson, Nortel Networks) discusses metallic testing at the DSLAM. The Commission of theEuropean Union recently published a decision that spectrum unbundling (line sharing) shall be provided in memberstates by December 31 2000. In the US, the FCC order 99-355 November 18, 1999, requires that equal access to theline be provided to enable both an incumbent and a competitive operator to perform metallic testing. Consideringthe implications of this for Europe, this contribution proposes that ETSI TM6 and AT groups jointly study theissues. The objective should be to identify changes and additions to ETSI DSL system specifications necessary tosupport spectrum unbundling.

A discussion was held on what should be Part 2 of Spectrum Management. It was suggested that it could be a list ofreferences to the individual country frequency plans. The point was raised that the national frequency plan is highlypolitical; it impacts the way national assets are used.

DSL TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY ISSUES

A break out session on testing and interoperability was held; WD-13bis gives the result. This discussion indicated alevel of interest in:

• Testing of interoperability documents, including performance aspects.• The organization of bake-offs with ETSI and in collaboration with DSL Forum for:

-ADSL over ISDN



-SDSL-VDSL

WD-14 is a presentation that gives a description of ETSI capabilities, recent and planned bake-off events, and of apossible way forward on ADSL interoperability testing, using ETSI bake-offs. In any case, agreement on the testpurpose is needed.

In discussion at the plenary, M. Gindel (acting chair) concluded that the mood seemed to be that TM6 should notstart work on interoperability testing, but should support the work of the DSL Forum. He instructed the group tocome to the next meeting with a clear idea of how TM6 should work on interoperability testing, includingcontributions and a volunteer for Rapporteur should a work item be requested.

It was agreed that an official liaison back to the DSL Forum would be drafted at the next meeting, as the Forum wasnot officially meeting before then. However, there was an agreement to appoint a topic champion to lead emaildiscussions on the TM6 email exploder to prepare for the meeting in Monterey, and development of a liaison to theDSL Forum. Another objective is to develop draft plans for ongoing cooperation with the DSLF and associateddevelopment of the ETSI work plan. It was also agreed to verbally inform the board of the DSL Forum of our work,and encourage dialogue between meetings. The work on the exploder will address preparation of technical materialthat might form the basis of a liaison to the DSL Forum; and development of a draft plans for cooperation with theDSL Forum and ongoing ETSI work items.

Jacques Besseyre, Telecomsult S.A.R.L.

TM6 MEETING ROSTER, SEPTEMBER 18 – 22, 2000, V IENNA, AUSTRIA

Hans Jörg Frizlen, ETSI TM6 Chair

Austria Telecommunications Research Centre Vienna (FTW) Werner HenkelAustria Telecommunications Research Centre Vienna (FTW) Tomas NordströmAustria Telekom Austria AG Manfred GindelAustria Telekom Control GmbH Bernhard MayrBelgium Alcatel Bell Peter ReusensBelgium Alcatel Bell Sigurd SchelstraeteBelgium Belgacom Vincent CollotBelgium Element 14 Olivier van de WielCzech Republic Telecom a.s. Milan Meninger CeskyFinland FINNET Group Tuomas LaineFinland Nokia Corporation Jari LindholmFinland Nokia Corporation Jouko TörmänenFrance Conexant Systems SAS George EislerFrance Conexant Systems SAS Ragnar JonssonFrance DLS TestWorks Ltd. Michael GirouxFrance DLS TestWorks Ltd. Manfred SadelerFrance ETSI Bernt MattssonFrance France Telecom Jean-Marc CorolleurFrance France Telecom Yannick Le GoffFrance France Telecom Pascal Le GuernFrance LEA Laboratoire Européan ADSL Philip GoldenFrance Level One Com. Europe Berna AdalierFrance Paradyne International William (Bill) PecheyFrance SAGEM Group Eric DalleFrance SAGEM Group Roger SamyFrance ST Microelectronics Denis MestdaghFrance Texas Instruments SA Krista JacobsenFrance Texas Instruments SA Neil QuarmbyGermany Acterna (former W&G) Karl BenzelGermany Alcatel Kommunikations Elektronik Ludger DreierGermany CETECOM ICT Services GmbH Andreas EhreGermany Deutsche Telekom AG Ronald HoffmannGermany Deutsche Telekom AG Marko Löffelholz



Germany Deutsche Telekom AG Günter ZedlerGermany Fraunhofer ESK Sven KeuneckeGermany Fraunhofer ESK Alfred VoglsangGermany Siemens AG Dirk DaeckeGermany Siemens AG Hagen HennigerGermany Siemens AG Wilfried KubingerGermany Siemens AG Klaus StarnbergerGermany Siemens AG Reinhard StolleGermany Siemens AG Armin TannhäuserGermany Siemens AG Ingo VolkeningGermany Vacuumschmelze GmbH Johannes BinkofskiHungary MATAV Hungarian Telecommunications Co. Tamas BaloghIreland PCM-Sierra Inc. Edward JonesIsrael IAEI Amir LeshamIsrael IAEI Oz MickaItaly ITALTEL S.p.A. Alberto ProfumoItaly Marconi Communications Mauro MolinariItaly Ministero Comunicazioni ISCTI Gianfranco PensiliItaly Telecom Italia SPA Flavio CucchiettiItaly Telecom Italia SPA Manrizio GiammarchiItaly Telecom Italia SPA Lorenzo MagnoneItaly Telecom Italia SPA Giammarchi MaurizoNetherlands KPN Rob van den BrinkNetherlands Lucent Technologies EMEA B.V: Brian WaringNorway NPT (Norway) Rasmus TrevlandPortugal ICP - Instituto das Comunicacoes de Portugal Oscar CarvalhoPortugal PT Inovacao Paulo Mao-CheiaSweden Ericsson Telecom AB Jan BoströmSweden Ericsson Telecom AB Franz HaberlSweden Telia AB Per ÖdlingSweden Telia AB Göran ÖkvistSwitzerland Adtran AG Marc KimpeSwitzerland Ascom AG Angus CarrickSwitzerland BAKOM / OFCOM Kurt BartschiSwitzerland Swisscom AG Andreas ThönyUK ADC Microcellular Systems Ltd. Paul SchmokelUK BT plc Don ClarkeUK BT plc John W. CookUK BT plc Kevin FosterUK Consultronics Europe Ltd. Thomas NagelUK Fujitsu Europe Telecom R&D Centre David SumnerUK GlobeSpan Semiconductor Inc Jacques BesseyreUK Marconi Communications Ltd. Peter DixonUK Motorola Ltd. Bernard DugerdilUK NEC Europe Ltd. Georgi PetkovUK Nortel Networks Les HumphreyUK Nortel Networks Roger WilliamsonUSA Broadcom Corporation Vladimir OksmanUSA Cisco Systems Inc Justus OsudeUSA Copper Mountain Networks Jack YangUSA MCI WorldCOM Daryl C. Tannis



ACRONYM DEFINITIONS

3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project (ETSI)A&T Architecture & Transport (DSL Forum Committee, formerly ATM)a.k.a. Also Known AsAAL ATM Adaptation LayerAAL(D) Analog PSTN Access Line (Analog PBX Interface, TIA-646-B)ACELP Adaptive CELPACIL Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and Testing FirmsADPCM Adaptive Differential PCMADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber LineAIN Advanced Intelligent NetworkANAI Access Network Architecture and InterfacesANSI American National Standards InstituteAPEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ForumAPI Application Programming InterfaceASN Abstract Symbol NotationATF Administrative Task ForceATG Access Transport Group (DSL ForumATIS Alliance for Telecommunications Industry SolutionsATM Asynchronous Transfer ModeATS Abstract Test SuiteATU-R ADSL Transceiver Unit - Remote Terminal EndBCH Bose, Chaudhuri, and HocquenghamBICC Bearer Independent Call ControlBLES Broadband Loop Emulation ServiceBRA Basic Rate AccessCA Conformity AssessmentCAB Conformity Assessment BodyCAP Carrier-less Amplitude modulation Phase modulationCATV Cable TelevisionCCB Common Carrier BureauCCS Common Channel SignalingCENELEC Commission Europeenne de Normalisation Electrotechnique (European Electrotechnical Standards Committee)CFR Code of Federal RegulationsCIB Configuration Information BaseCISPR International Special Committee on Radio InterferenceCITEL Comision Internamericana de TelecomunicacionesCME Circuit Multiplication EquipmentCO Central OfficeCORBA Common Object Request Broker ArchitectureCP Customer PremisesCPE Customer Premise EquipmentCS Canadian StandardCS Circuit SwitchedCSA Canadian Standards AssociationCSE Communication Service EquipmentCSS Convolutional Spectral ShapingCT Call TraceCVoDSL Channnelized VoDSLDCME Digital Circuit Multiplication EquipmentDECT Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (ETSI)DEG Draft ETSI GuideDFE Decision Feedback EqualizerDHCP Dynamic Host Control Protocol (REF2131)DIG ISDN compatible Digital Station and tie trunk (TIA-646-B)DLC Digital Loop CarrierDM Differential ModeDMT Discrete Multi-tone CarrierDNS Domain Name ServerDoC Declaration of ConformityDRP Drum Reference PointDS1 1.544 Mbit/s T1 InterfaceDSI Digital Speech InterpolationDSL Digital Subscriber LineDSLAM DSL Access MultiplexerDSLF DSL ForumDSS1 Digital Subscriber Signaling 1DTMF Dual Tone Multi FrequencyDTR Draft Technical Report (ETSI)DTS Draft Technical Standard (ETSI)



EC Echo CancelerEC European CommissionECIC Electronic Communications Implementation CommitteeECMA European Communications Manufacturers AssociationEDH Electronic Document HandlingEDI Electronic Data InterchangeEDSLSG Emerging DSL Study Group (DSL Forum)EEA European Economic AreaEFTA European Free Trade AreaEG ETSI GuideEICTA European Information and Communications Technology Industry AssociationEMC ElectroMagnetic CompatibilityEMS Element Management SystemENUM tElephone NUmbering Mapping (IETF)EOC Embedded Operations ChannelERL Echo Return LossERP Ear Reference PointES ETSI StandardESLR Equivalent SLRETSI European Telecommunications Standards InstituteEU European UnionEUT Equipment Under TestFAQ Frequently Asked QuestionFCC Federal Communications Commission (U.S.)FDD Frequency Division DuplexingFEC Forward Error CorrectionFEXT Far End Cross TalkFRF Frame Relay ForumFS VDSL Full Service VDSL (FSAN Committee)FSAN Full Service Access NetworksFUNI Frame based UNIGPRS General Packet Ratio ServiceGSM Global System for Mobile CommunicationsHAC Hearing Aid CompatibleHATS Head and Torso SimulatorHDSL High-rate Digital Subscriber LineHW HardwareI-V Current - VoltageIAD Integrated Access DeviceIAS Industrial Applications Society (IEEE)IC Interexchange CarrierICS Digital line interface to ISDN Compatible Station meeting requirements of TIA/EIA-579ID IdentificationIDL Interface Design LanguageIEC International Electrotechnical CommitteeIEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic EngineersIETF Internet Engineering Task ForceIG Interoperability GroupIIR Institute for International ResearchILMI Interim Local Management Interface (ATMForum)IM Internet Multimedia (3GPP)IMTC International Multimedia Teleconferencing ConsortiumIN Intelligent NetworkingINAP Intelligent Network Application ProfileIOL InterOperability Laboratory (University of New Hampshire)IP Internet ProtocolIPCP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (RFC1332)IPR Intellectual Property RightsISDN Integrated Services Digital NetworkISO International Organization for StandardizationISWG Interoperability Sub Working Group (DSL Forum)ITAC ITU-T Advisory CommitteeITI Information Technology Industry Council (formerly CBEMA)ITU-R ITU Radiocommunications SectorITU-T ITU Telecommunications SectorIUT Implementation Under TestIWF Inter-Working FunctionJBIG Joint Binary Image GroupJPEG Joint Photographics Expert GroupKTS Key Telephone SystemLATA Local Access Transport Area



LB Letter BallotLCD Loss of Cell DelineationLES Loop Emulation ServiceLI Lawful InterceptionLLC Logical Link ControlLR Loudness RatingLSSGR LATA Switching Systems Generic Requirements (Bellcore)MAC Media Access ControlMBN Multiservice Broadband NetworksMCM Multi-Carrier ModulationMegaco MEdia GAteway Control (IETF)Megacop MEdia GAteway COntrol ProtocolMGCP Media Gateway Control ProtocolMIB Management Information BaseMLTS Multi-Line Telecommunications SystemsMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMRA Mutual Recognition AgreementsMSC Mobile Switching CenterMSISDN Mobile Station ISDNMTA Multimedia Terminal and ApplicationsNAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNAG Network Architecture Group (DSL Forum)NAP Network Access ProviderNAPTR Naming Authority PointerNDA Non-Disclosure AgreementNEC National Electric Code (U.S.)NENA National Emergency Number AssociationNESC National Electric Safety CodeNEXT Near End Cross TalkNGDLC Next Generation Digital Loop CarrierNIST National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNMS Network Management SystemNPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC)NRTL Nationally Recognized Testing LaboratoryNSP Network Service ProviderO&NM Operations and Network Management working group (ADSL Forum)OAM Operations, Administration, and MaintenanceOCD Out of Cell Delineation (UNI 3.0)OET Office of Engineering and Technology (FCC)OLR Overall Loudness RatingOPS Off Premise StationOSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (U.S.)OSP Open Settlement ProtocolPAG Practical Application GuidelinesPBO Power Back OffPBX Private Branch ExchangePCI Peripheral Component InterconnectPCIC Petroleum and Chemical Technical Conference (IEEE IAS)PCM Pulse Code ModulationPCT Pairwise Correlating TransformPEF Proxy Element FunctionPHY Physical Layer Working Group of ATM ForumPICS Protocol Implementation Conformance StatementPIXIT Profile Initialization for Test CasesPLMN Public Land Mobile NetworkPMC Packet Mode ChannelPOTS Plain Old Telephone ServicePPP Point-to-Point ProtocolPRI Primary Rate Interface (ISDN)PSD Power Spectral DensityPSTN Public Switched Telephone NetworkPTNO Public Telecommunications Network Operator (TIPHON)QAM Quadrature Amplitude ModulationQoS Quality of ServiceQSIG The signaling protocol used at the Q-interface between two switches in a private network. ECMA/ISO have

defined a set of QSIG standards.R&TTE Radio and TTE (Telecommunications Terminal Equipment) DirectiveRADSL Rate-Adapting ADSLRAM Random Access MemoryREN Ringer Equivalence NumberRF Radio FrequencyRFC Designation for an IETF Standard



RFI Radio Frequency InterferenceRFI Request for InformationRLR Receive Loudness RatingRSVP Resource Reservation Setup Protocol (IETF)RT Remote TerminalRTE Remote Terminal EquipmentRTP Real Time Transport Protocol (IETF)RTS Revised Technical Specification (ETSI)SCN Switched Circuit NetworkSCP Service Control PointSDH Synchronous Digital HierarchySDO Standards Development OrganizationSDoC Suppliers Declaration of ConformitySDSL Symmetrical high bit rate Digital Subscriber LineSELV Low Voltage associated with digital circuits (IEC 950)SHDSL Single-line High Speed DSLSIG Special Interest GroupSIN System Identification NetworkSIP Session Initiation Protocol (IETF)SLD Second Level DomainSLR Send Loudness RatingSM Spectrum ManagementSNMP Simple Network Management Protocol (IETF)SP Service ProviderSPAN Services and Protocols for Advanced Networks (ETSI)SPAR Service Provider Access Requirements (ETSI SPAN)STF Specialist Task ForceSTM Synchronous Transmission ModeSTP Standards Technical PanelSTQ Speech Transmission QualitySTU SHDSL Transceiver UnitSVC Switched Virtual CircuitSW SoftwareSWG Sub-Working GroupTAPAC Terminal Attachment Program Advisory CommitteeTBD To be DeterminedTBR Technical Basis for Regulation (ETSI standard)TC AT Technical Committee Access and Terminals (ETSI)TC HF Technical Committee Human Factor (ETSI)TC Technical CommitteeTC Transmission Convergence LayerTCB Telecommunications Certification BodiesTCIF Telecommunications Industry Forum (ATIS)TCP Transmission Control ProtocolTDM Time Division MultiplexTE Terminal EquipmentTETRA Trans European Trunked RAdioTIA Telecommunications Industry AssociationTIGIN Transport Network Equipment for Interconnecting GSTN and IP NetworksTINA Telecommunications Information Networking ArchitectureTIPHON Telecommunications and Internet Protocol Harmonization Over Networks (ETSI Project)TM Transmission and Multiplexing (ETSI Committee)TNV Telephone Network Voltage (IEC 950)ToR Terms of ReferenceTP Test PurposeTPS Transport Protocol Specific TR Technical ReportTR Technical Requirements (TIA committee)TRC TIPHON Resolution CapabilityTS Technical SpecificationTS Time Slot (Q6/15)TSB Telecommunications Standardization Board (ITU)TSB Telecommunications Systems Bulletin (TIA)TSS Test Suite StructureTSWG Transport Sub Working Group (DSL Forum)TTCN Tree and Tabular Combined NotationTTF Technical Task ForceTTT Trans European Network Telecom (TIPHON)UCI Universal Communications IdentifierUDP User Datagram Protocol (IETF)UL Underwriters Laboratories



UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications SystemUNH University of New HampshireUNI User-Network InterfaceUPBO Upstream Power Back-OffUPT Universal Personal Telecommunications (ITU)V-I Voltage - CurrentVAME Voice on ATM Multiplication EquipmentVC Virtual ChannelVCI Virtual Channel IdentifierVDSL Very high speed DSLVoATM Voice over ATMVoDSL Voice over DSLVoIP Voice Over Internet ProtocolVoMBN Voice over Multi-Service Broadband NetworksVPI Virtual Path IdentifierVPN Virtual Private NetworkVTOA Voice and Telephony Over ATMVTU-C VDSL Transceiver Unit - CentralVTU-O VDSL Transeiver Unit at the Optical network unitVTU-R VDSL Transceiver Unit - Remote TerminalWG Working GroupWI Work ItemWINS BT’s Wideband Impulsive Noise SurveyWT Working Text (ADSL Forum)xDSL all the different Digital Subscriber Line technology

The next issue of Communications Standards Review (Vol. 11 #10)is scheduled for November, 2000.



YEAR 2000 STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULESAS OF OCTOBER 26, 2000

Subject to Change without Notice

Committee Date(s) Locat ionTR-29 Nov 1 - 3 Arlington, VAQ2/15 Rapp. Nov 7 - 9 ---Q19-21/16 Rapp Nov 8 - 10 Geneva, SwitzerlandQ12-14/16 Rapp Nov 9 - 10 Geneva, SwitzerlandITU-T SG16 Nov 13 - 17 Geneva, SwitzerlandT1E1 Nov 13 - 17 Savannah, GA

Committee Date(s) Locat ionTR-41 Nov 13 - 17 Savannah, GAETSI TM6 #20 Nov 27 - Dec1 Monterey, CATR-30 Dec 4 - 8 Scottsdale, AZETSI TIPHON #21 Dec 4 - 8 Kyoto, JapanTR-42 Dec 4 - 8 Tampa, FLDSL Forum Dec 5 - 8 Portland, OR

YEAR 2001 STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULESSubject to Change without Notice

Committee Date(s) Locat ionQ4/15 Rapp. Jan 8 - 12 Clearwater, FLQ6, 7, 21/15 Jan 31 - Feb 2 Geneva, SwitzerlandSG15 Feb 5 - 9 GenevaT1E1 Feb 19 - 23 Costa Mesa, CATR-41 Feb 19 - 23 Costa Mesa, CATM6 #21 Feb 26 - Mar 2 S. Antipolis, FranceTR-30 Mar 5 - 9 ---TR42 Mar 5 - 9 Palm Springs or

PhoenixDSL Forum Mar 12 - 16 Vancouver, BCETSI TC AT #3 Mar 26 - 30 S. Antipolis, FranceTIPHON #22 Mar 26 - 30 Bethesda, MDQ4/15 Rapp (prop.) Apr 9 - 13 Cairo, EgyptT1E1 May 7 - 11 Orlando, FLTR-41 May 7 - 11 Orlando, FLTM6 #22 May 14 - 18 Gent, BelgiumQ4/15 Rapp (prop.) Jun 4 - 8 Southern CATR-30 Jun 11 - 13 Southern CATR-42 Jun 11 - 15 Montreal or Niagara

Falls

Committee Date(s) Locat ionDSL Forum Jun 18 - 22 Oslo, NorwayTIPHON #23 July 9 - 13 S. Antipolis, FranceQ4/15 Rapp (prop.) Aug 6 - 10 ItalyT1E1 Aug 20 - 24 Toronto or

MontrealTR-41 Aug 20 - 24 Toronto or

MontrealTR-42 Aug 20 - 24 Bar Harbor, ME or

Park City, UTDSL Forum Aug 27 - Sep 1 New Orleans, LATM6 #23 Sep 10 - 14 PragueTR-30 Sep 24 - 28 ---Q4/15 Rapp (prop.) Oct 8 - 12 MaineTIPHON #24 November AsiaT1E1 Nov 5 - 9 San Antonio, TXTR-41 Nov 5 - 9 San Antonio, TXTR-42 Nov 5 - 9 New Orleans, LATM6 #24 Nov 12 - 16 S. Antipolis, FranceTR-30 Dec 3 - 7 ---DSL Forum Dec 3 - 7 Munich, Germany

Communications Standards Review (ISSN 1064-3907) is published 9 - 10 times per year, within days afterthe latest, related standards meetings. Editor: Elaine J. Baskin, Ph.D. Technical Editor: Ken Krechmer. Copyright© 2000, Communications Standards Review. All rights reserved. Copying of individual articles for distributionwithin a subscriber organization is permitted. Subscriptions: $795.00 per year worldwide, paper or electronicformat. Corporate Intranet subscriptions (Corporate license for multiple copies) are available. Submit articles forconsideration to: Communications Standards Review, 757 Greer Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA. Tel: +1-650-856-9018. Fax: +1-650-856-6591. e-mail: [email protected]. Web: http://www.csrstds.com.

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS

REVIEW

757 Greer RoadPalo Alto, CA USA 94303-3024

Voice: +1-650-856-9018Fax: +1-650-856-6591

[email protected]://www.csrstds.com

October 26, 2000

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW ELECTRONIC FORMAT POLICY

The distribution restrictions on the electronic versions of Communications StandardsReview (CSR) are similar to the restrictions on the hard copy versions. Copying ofindividual articles/reports for distribution within an organization is permitted. The electronicversion may be mounted on a server whose accesss is restricted to a single organizationprovided that only individual articles/reports are downloaded/accessed, not a complete issueof CSR. However, you are welcome to forward your copy (deleting it on your system) toothers in your oganization. The intent here is that the electronic version of CSR has thesame restraints as the hardcopy version but is easier/quicker to distribute within theorganization in electronic form. Each issue is identified with a customer-specificidentification number.

If you wish to receive both hard copy and electronic copy, the cost is $150.00 additionalper subscription.

CSR also offers an Intranet subscription which permits unlimited copies to the subscribingorganization ($2,150.00 per year).

Any questions? Please contact us.

Elaine J. Baskin, Ph.D.Publisher

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW · October 2000 Vol. 11.9 Copyright © CSR 2000 1 COMMUNICATIONS...

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW · October 2000 Vol. 11.9 Copyright © CSR 2000 1 COMMUNICATIONS...