CSR Volume 11 #2, March-A, 2000

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW

Volume 11, Number 2 March-A, 2000

In This Issue

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

TR-30.3, Data Comm. Equipment Evaluation and Network Interfaces, Jan. 12 Ð 14, 2000, Boca Raton, FL..... 2 TR-30.3 Meeting Roster, January 12 Ð 14, 2000, Boca Raton, FL ...... 7 Q4/15, xDSL Network Access Transceivers, January 31 Ð February 4, 2000, Fiji ...... 8 G.gen...... 8 G.shdsl (Single-Pair High Speed Digital Subscriber Line Transceivers) ...... 10 G.vdsl...... 15 G.pnt ...... 18 G.lite-bis...... 19 G.dmt-bis ...... 20 G.hs-bis...... 21 G.ploam-bis ...... 22 G.test-bis...... 23 G.ref-bis...... 23 ITU-T STUDY GROUP 8, Terminal Equipment for Telematic Services, February 2 - 10, 2000, Geneva...... 25 Recommendations Decided by SG8 ...... 25 SG8 Approvals...... 25 Recommendations Determined by SG8 ...... 25 Recommendations Deleted by SG8 ...... 25 Question 1/8, Facsimile Terminals...... 26 Question 2/8, Facsimile Test Charts and Test Images ...... 32 Question 3/8, Cooperative Document Handling...... 32 Question 4/8, Document Communication Services ...... 33 Question 5/8, Color for Telematic Applications...... 39 Question 6/8, Common Components for Image Communication ...... 42 DSL Forum Technical Committee Meeting ...... 46 Architecture and Transport ...... 46 Voice over DSL (VoDSL)...... 48 Operations & Network Management...... 49 Testing & Interoperability ...... 50 Symmetric DSL ...... 52 Emerging DSLs Study Group (EDSLSG)...... 53 ADSL Forum Meeting Roster, February 8 Ð 11, Paris, France...... 54 Acronym Definitions ...... 61 Year 2000 Standards Committee Meeting Schedules as of March 9, 2000...... 64 Terms of Distribution for Electronic Copies...... 65

REPORT OF TR-30.3, DATA COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT EVALUATION AND NETWORK INTERFACES JANUARY 12 – 14, 2000, BOCA RATON, FL The TR-30.1, TR-30.1 ad hoc, and TR-30.2 reports were published in the previous issue of CSR. J. Douglass (Conexant) is the TR-30.3 Chair. TR-30.3/00-01-001 is the report of the Clearwater, FL, Meeting December 1999. The meeting on January 12 was held jointly with SG16/Q8 (DCE - DCE protocols) for the purpose of agreeing on a set of test files that can be used for both analyzing the characteristics of candidate compression algorithms and for performance evaluation. The meetings on January 13 and 14 were held jointly with the T1E1.4 ad hoc group for xDSL Modem Performance Evaluation. TR-30.3/00-01-002 is the Assignment List from the December TR-30.3 meeting. TR-30.3/00-01-016 is the Document Register for this meeting. TR-30.3/00-01-015 (J. Douglass, Conexant) reports that TIA/EIA-3700, Telephone Network Transmission Model for Evaluating Analog Modem Performance, is now published and is available on the ITU Q10/16 ftp site for consideration to be included in Rec. V.56bis. TR-30.3 is presently not working on an international version of this document, since there is limited application of modem peer- to-peer connections. However, TR-30.3 is working on an international version of PN-3857, International Telephone Network Transmission Model for Evaluating Analog Client and Digitally Connected Server. It is believed that this work is more representative of today’s Internet-connected modem applications. LIAISON REPORTS TR-30.3/00-01-003 (J. Douglass, Conexant) describes problems with the operation of V.90 modems over cable telephony circuits that use GR303 Integrated Digital Loop Carrier signaling. GR303 specifies a Robbed Bit Signaling (RBS) pattern of 0101 for the Line Current Feed (LCF) ABCD code. Most V.90 modems currently deployed are not optimized to operate over lines that have an RBS pattern of 0101. This contribution recommends the following possible solutions: ¥ Specify using 0000 or 1111 RBS pattern for Line Current Feed instead of 0101. (This will be difficult to change because the T1 standard [ANSI T1-403.2-1999] is based on the GR303 specification.) ¥ Partition the CO Switch and IDLC as required to use 0000 or 1111 for Line Current Feed instead of 0101 ¥ Add an option for bit-stuffing on DS1 interfaces with the IDLC system ¥ Issue a field warning about the problem TR-30.3/00-01-012 (F. Lucas, 3Com, TR-30 Chair) is a liaison to the Cable Telephone Committee, T1E1.1, T1E1.2, T1E1.4 and the GR303 committee (Telcordia). It describes the operational problems of V.90 modems over cable telephony/HFC (hybrid fiber coax) circuits that use GR303 signaling. Cable companies are experiencing 50 reported problems per 2500 lines that are installed - a very high number. Field testing has shown: ¥ Most V.90 client modems don’t operate well over circuits with 0101 RBS patterns. ¥ Many of the Cable Telephony circuits don’t synchronize robbed bits which results in up to 5 robbed bits being seen by the modem. All V.90 modems connect at lower speeds and have lower throughput when more bits are robbed. ¥ Some of the installed Cable Telephony circuits don’t follow the fixed loss plan which results in a high receive signal level. Typically modems are not optimized to operate over circuits with high receive levels, since standard telephone lines have local loops, which attenuate the signal. It has been found that the V.90 modems operate better over the Cable Telephony circuits, if there is a fixed loss of 6 dB in the downstream direction.

The liaison also discusses in detail operational and technical solutions to the problems. TR-30.3 responded via a liaison to the DSL Forum’s question regarding recommendations concerning references to specification or other documents that would describe dial mode impairments (i.e., ringing, offhook, state changes). In addition a tutorial on the subject was provided. (See the DSL Forum report in this issue of CSR.) Also, TR-30.3 responded that they have no issues or suggestions concerning the Forum’s proposed alternative method for measuring error ratios using ATM Cell errors, as contained in Annex B of DSL Forum’s WT-29. PN-3509, REVISION OF TSB-38 (TEST PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING MODEM PERFORMANCE) TR-30.3/00-01-006 (W. Henderson Jr., Henderson Labs) contains comparative test results of files used for tests performed on modems expected to be used on Internet connections. Results of files tested include the three files proposed at the last TR-30.3 meeting by J. Heath (Hughes Network Systems), the existing standardized files, and abridged versions of the proposed files (to operate with existing software). The test files proposed do not appear to adversely change the performance of the tested systems when compared to existing test files. Therefore, since they are more representative of actual user files, further work is justified. However, the existing files proposed by J. Heath are incompatible with existing test equipment and therefore some changes need to be considered. TR-30.3/00-01-008 (T. Martin, Cisco) presents the results of throughput tests conducted using the new files distributed at the Clearwater (Dec. 1999) meeting. Two client modems and one digital modem technology were tested. The modems were configured for V.90, with V.42 error correction and V.42bis compression enabled. The phone line involved was an internal PBX line, with no intentional impairments. The new files involved (Amazon.ts6, Mail.txt, and Webfile) were transferred in each direction, first unidirectionally, then bidirectionally. The files were not truncated, and were transferred in their original entirety. TR-30.3/00-01-011 (A. Clark, CTO Consulting) proposes a set of test files for evaluating lossless compression algorithms. The test files were selected from a large set of files, the objective being to find a small subset of files that would be representative of the whole set. Cluster analysis was used to find a subset that exhibited similar compression properties to the large set. Discussion yielded the following decisions and assignments: ¥ TR-30.3 agreed that test files which can be used for both analyzing the characteristics of candidate compressions algorithms and for performance evaluation are desirable. ¥ TR-30.3 will consider keeping the old file types and adding the new file types. ¥ W. Henderson (Henderson Labs) will generate a set of 64k files by extracting the first 64k of each file. These files will be used with existing test equipment, which has a 64k limit. ¥ T. McGrath (TAS) will investigate whether the simulator equipment can be modified to utilize larger files, to avoid file truncation. Currently the test equipment is incapable of transmitting these files in automode; they can only be transmitted in a manual mode from disk. ¥ TR-30.3 agreed to consider two compression parameters when evaluating the files: entropy (probability of occurrence for each character) and compression ratio. ¥ D. Bardes (Ziff-Davis Labs) and W. Henderson (Henderson Labs) will work on scrambling the files to preempt copyright issues; it is hoped that the characteristics will remain the same. ¥ It was decided to use A. Clark’s (CTO Consulting) 16 files, J. Heath’s (Hughes Networks) three web files, and the file from ADI. ¥ W. Henderson (Henderson Labs) agreed to characterize the candidate test files by running them on modems; A. Clark (CTO Consulting) agreed to characterize the files by running them through the candidate algorithms. ¥ The Paper1 file caused the modem under test to drop the line. It was confirmed that the file doesn’t contain the TIES sequence. W. Henderson (Henderson Labs) will investigate the possible causes for the problem.

¥ It was noted that in some situations, bi-directional file transfer can result in a degradation of the downlink performance of modems. TR-30.3/00-01-014 (J. Douglass, Conexant; W. Henderson, Jr., Henderson Labs; A. Clark, CTO Consulting) proposes candidate test files for lossless compression algorithm performance evaluation. TR-30.3 Committee members have discussed methods for improving the relevance of files used for tests performed on modems (with compression) expected to be used on Internet connections. This paper discusses files, justifies their use, and presents sample test results using the proposed files. It is to be forwarded to the ITU-T SG16/Q10 for consideration for inclusion into V.56bis. PN-3857, NORTH AMERICAN TELEPHONE NETWORK TRANSMISSION MODEL FOR EVALUATING ANALOG CLIENT AND DIGITALLY CONNECTED SERVER MODEMS TR-30.3/00-01-004r1, PN-3857-INT Draft 2, International Telephone Network Transmission Model for Evaluating Analog Client and Digitally Connected Server Modems (J.P. Houdard, Texas Instruments, Editor), was submitted to the ITU SG16 for consideration as a Recommendation. The network model it describes accommodates four-wire digitally-connected server modems and the associated two-wire analog-connected client modems designed to operate over these connections. It is intended to be used with TIA/EIA-3800, Test Procedures for Evaluation of Two-wire Duplex Modems. TR-30.3/00-01-005 (S. Bacon, Conexant) presents comparative results for several variations of PN- 3857 Draft 13, using several combinations of anonymous Client/Server modem pairs. Modems from different vendors were used including four Client Modems (A, B C, and D) and two Server Modems (1, and 2). These pairs were run on several variations of PN-3857 Draft 13. All tests were run using the 95% subset of the model. The results presented are for information and discussion only; no conclusions were drawn, as no empirical results are available. TR-30.3/00-01-007, Comparison of 240i Test Results (W. Henderson, Henderson Labs), contains comparative test results using the existing PN-3857 Draft 14 local-loop impairment values and those same values reduced by the proposed Draft 14 loop loss. TR-30.3/00-01-009 (J. Douglass, Conexant) contains rate renegotiation graphs representing 5,742 V.34 calls and 6,190 V.90 calls in the U.S. This data was provided by an anonymous, major worldwide ISP, who reports seeing a considerably higher number of rate renegotiations on V.90 modems versus V.34 modems. The ISP wants to know if anything can be done to improve the performance of V.90 modems by reducing the number of rate renegotiations. TR-30.3/00-01-010 (J. Douglass, Conexant) was also submitted by an anonymous, major worldwide ISP. It contains graphs for Measured Round Trip Delay, Number of Robbed Bits, Digital Pad Detected, Final Connect Speed All Connections, Final Connect Speed All PCM Connections, 83% Scaled PCM Final Connect Speed/10 / 83% Simulated Throughput (Connect Speed*1.18) and Downstream Draft 13 Superimposed with 83% Simulated Throughput Curves (Connect Speed*1.1415). The data was taken from a database of over 110,000 calls in 15 cities on November 18, 1999, November 25, 1999 and January 5, 2000. It recommends that TR-30.3 consider applying these real world network statistics to the PN-3857 Network model. Committee review and discussion resulted in the following: • The Round Trip Delay (RTD) on the real network statistics has delays that are much shorter (0 ms to 30 ms) than those in the network model (up to 80 ms). These RTD differences are most likely a result of the fact that the network model includes inter-LATA calls and the real network data mostly intra-LATA calls. • Some companies are attempting to use 6 dB PADs on all connections, while others are still using a 0 dB PADs for calls into and out of the same switch. • The next revision of the model should be mostly intra-LATA to reflect the network statistics. • The network statistics indicate that four RBS links should be included in the network model. It is believed that four RBS links are caused by tandem switch arrangements. Four RBS links will be included on 1.5% of the network model for both D4 and ISDN.

• A 0101 RBS patterns will be included on 1.8% of the network model for both D4 and ISDN. • The Digital PAD percentages in the network model need to be adjusted to match the real network statistics. • The real world results are an average of good and bad, which tends to normalize the curve for the higher percentages. • TR-30.3 decided reduce Gaussian noise by 3 dB on all the impairment combinations because it appears to more closely match the real world curves. Power Line Interference (PLI) will be left the same. The real network statistics validate the network model. The real network estimated throughput is very close to the throughput on the network model. J. Douglass (Conexant) will submit text for the real network statistics to be included in an Appendix. With changes recommended by TR-30.3, TR-30.3/00- 01-004r1, was submitted to ITU SG16 for their consideration for inclusion into a new Recommendation. TR-30.3/00-01-013 (R. Perez, Telcordia) presents an updated set of tables that reduces Gaussian noise by 3 dB. Also, an RBS link is added to I03a&b, I04a&b, I07a&b, I08a&b for 4 links to cover 1.5% of network for D4. An RBS link is added to I11a&b, I12a&b, I15a&b, and I16a for 4 links with coverage of 1.5% for ISDN. An RBS pattern of “0101” is required on I03b, I07b&d for a coverage of 1.8% for D4 and I11b, I15b&d for a coverage of 1.8% for ISDN. This work was based on TR-30.3/00-01-005, TR-30.3/00-01-007, and TR-30.3/00-01-010, and agreed to by TR-30.3. Both the US and international network models will be updated. TR-30.3 agreed to run tests using the updated ICs, and to present those results for ballot at the next meeting. The present loop test equipment is not capable of using metering pulses and noise at the same time. A possible solution is to use two loop emulators: one with metering pulses and one with Gaussian noise. The International Network Model will also cause changes to the Impairment Combinations (IC) tables based on the network statistics. J. Douglass (Conexant) will obtain international network statistics from the ISP. PN-4254, NETWORK ACCESS TRANSMISSION MODEL FOR EVALUATING XDSL MODEM PERFORMANCE AND PN-4255, TEST PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING XDSL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE TR-30.3/00-01-600 (P. Kyees, Paradyne, Ad Hoc Convener) is the updated Issues List for the xDSL transmission model project. It includes agreements reached during the December, 1999 meetings of the Ad Hoc group during the TR-30.3 and T1E1.4 meetings in Clearwater, Florida. TR-30.3/00-01-601 (P. Kyees, Editor, Paradyne) is Draft 8 of PN-4254, Network Access Transmission Model for Evaluating xDSL Modem Performance. It reflects the changes made in the TR-30.3 Clearwater meeting. Editor’s notes of all previous drafts are included. This was reviewed, and in discussion the following were agreed: ¥ Page 48: reduce number of residence premises wiring models to case 2 and 3 ¥ Page 48: reduce number of business wiring models to case 2 and 3 ¥ Annex E: remove list of countries and perform other smaller revisions ¥ Forward a liaison to Nortel to obtain distribution of AM radio signal frequency and transmitted power in Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. J.P. Houdard (Texas Instruments) will update the text. TR-30.3/00-01-602 (J.P. Houdard, Texas Instruments) provides the transmission characteristics of the 24 Test Loops that are presently considered in the Network Access Transmission Model. It defines the following: ¥ Attenuation in both downstream and upstream directions ¥ Impedance at CO/RT side

¥ Impedance at customer side of the loop portion that makes the link between the xDSL transceiver, located either in the Central Office (CO) or in the Remote Terminal (RT), and the Network Interface Device (NID). In discussion it was agreed to include transmission of test loops in the draft standard. There was also a request that TI generate results for 70 degrees and 120 degrees. TR-30.3/00-01-603 (J.P. Houdard, Texas Instruments) provides an update to the provisional scores determination of the North American network access transmission model for evaluating xDSL modem performance. At the Clearwater meeting in December, 1999, a provisional scores determination was proposed for test loops, connection types, impairments combinations, home wiring, and office building wiring. This contribution re-defines these scores, using data provided by Bellcore in TR-30.3/97-12- 89AH. In discussion it was agreed to add text on cross-product scores. An r1 version will be added to correct score of severity A and B. TR-30.3/00-01-604 (M. Schwan, Charles Industries) presents information on the deployment of pair gain systems, some of the transport technologies used, and their power spectral densities (PSD). These data can be used to model additional NEXT disturbers and their likelihood of occurrence within the network transmission model. Most of the information on transmitted PSD for pair gain systems was accepted; however, it was agreed that a mathematical model is needed, as well as transmitted PSD from other pair gain companies. It was also agreed to send liaison letters to Charles Industries, ECI, Raychem, and PairGain, regarding transmitted PSD, to be drafted by M. Schwan (Charles Industries).

TR-30.3/00-01-605 (E. Eckert, Nortel, T1E1 chair; J. Douglass, Conexant) contains three liaison letters: ¥ To ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers), requesting data from their recent loop survey which could help TR-30.3 ensure accuracy of the network access transmission model for evaluating xDSL modem performance currently being developed. The ILEC contact addresses are included. ¥ To the Home Phoneline Networking Alliance, requesting information from their home networking specifications for HPNA 1.0 and HPNA 2.0, to properly model the home environment. ¥ To the Security Industry Association, requesting information on home security systems attached to the home phone wiring, to properly model the home environment. TR-30.3 agreed that these liaison should be sent out under both TIA and T1E1 letterhead. Further, it was determined to send them to the following Regional Operating Company contacts: G. McAninch, GTE; J. Roquet, SBC; J. Eitel, USW; W. McNamara III, BellSouth; and T. Bishop, Bell Atlantic. TR-30.3/00-01-606 (P. Kyees, Paradyne, Ad Hoc Convener) contains the notes of the TR-30.3/T1E1.4 Ad Hoc meeting of December 8, 1999. The primary goal of the meeting was to obtain the remaining information needed to complete the draft standard on the Network Access Transmission Model. Contributions were considered and text added for sections covering RFI impairment modeling and Crosstalk distribution. In review of open areas of the draft, it was found that the necessary expertise to fill these voids was not in TR-30.3; consequently, TR-30.3/00-01-605 (above) was prepared as a means of obtaining the needed information to complete the standard. TR-30.3/00-01-607 (G. Bremer, Paradyne) reports the measured characteristics (at frequencies up to 6 MHz) of five types of common drop wire, and highlights potential xDSL performance issues that warrant inclusion of drop wire characteristics in all xDSL evaluations. Drop wire (or “entrance cable” or “service wire”), the telephony cabling that connects the subscriber loop and the NID (Network Interface Device) at residential and small business sites, is present in the communications link of most xDSL services, even “NID splittered” services and VDSL. Physical inspection of common drop wire types reveals that most have little or no twist and therefore should not be expected to have the same characteristics as 25 pair telephony binders. Typical lengths are 75 to 300 feet. Tested length was 300 feet. Typical results are reported for five common drop wire types: loss, coupled interfering signals from external sources and inter-wire pair

6 Vol. 11.2 Copyright © CSR 2000 March-A 2000 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW coupling (PEXT, Premises End Crosstalk). Text is proposed for inclusion in PN-4254, Section A.4.3, Drop Models. • Loss slope is about 2 dB per MHz up to 6 MHz on all drop wires. Ripple was negligible up to 1 MHz, but increased to ±2 dB above 3 MHz. • Interference from a single AM radio station can be as large as 12.6 mV in a 3 kHz band (-28 dBm at 100 ohms). • Crosstalk within the drop wire affects DSL performance differently than classical NEXT and FEXT. For these reasons, the drop wire crosstalk is referred to herein as PEXT: Premises End Crosstalk. • A model that approximates the maximum drop wire PEXT is:

Drop Wire PEXT = -83 + 15log10(f/10) dB for f in kHz and 10 kHz < f < 1 MHz Drop Wire PEXT = -53 + 30log10(f/10) dB for f in kHz and 1 MHz < f < 6 MHz

This was reviewed, and it was agreed to add the proposed text to the Standard. It was also agreed to request Paradyne verify that PEXT in premises wiring is independent of NEXT in the loop. The following steps necessary to complete draft text were identified: ¥ Section 4: Finalize the definition list ¥ Section 5: Provide new definition for network model ¥ Annex D: Text needed on Temp. effects, Noise, and Pair unbalance ¥ Page 49: Improve phone model to include non-linearities. It was agreed to finalize the text for TIA committee letter ballot at next meeting. A note to this effect will be added to ILEC letter. TR-30.3/00-01-608 (Nortel Networks) presents near-end and far-end crosstalk statistical models. Jack Douglass, Oak Technology

TR-30.3 MEETING ROSTER, JANUARY 12 – 14, 2000, BOCA RATON, FL Jack Douglass, Conexant TR-30.3 Chair Hosts: 3Com and Motorola 3Com Fred Lucas 3Com Brett McCleary Charles Industries Martin Schwan Cisco Tom Martin Compaq Computer Greg Bretting Conexant Jack Douglass Conexant Kyle Rypert Consultant R.S. Gopalan CTO Consulting Alan Clark (via Phone) Henderson Comm. Labs Warren Henderson Paradyne Philip Kyees Paradyne R.K. Smith PC Tel Tat Ho Q8/16 Rapporteur Bill Pechey Signals and Software Bruce Adams TAS Thomas McGrath Telcordia Ricardo Perez TI Jean-Pierre Houdard Vocal Technologies Alberto Torres Ziff-Davis Labs Dave Bardes

11902

REPORT OF Q4/15, XDSL NETWORK ACCESS TRANSCEIVERS, JANUARY 31 – FEBRUARY 4, 2000, FIJI R. Stuart (3Com) is the Q4/15 Rapporteur. FI-000 (S. Palm, Matsushita) is the document list. FI-001 (R. Stuart, 3 Com, Rapporteur Q4/15) is the agenda. FI-002 (R. Stuart) is the report of the November, 1999, Q4/15 Rapporteur meeting in Nashville, Tennessee (see CSR Vol. 10.11). FI-003 (R. Stuart) is the temporary document template for the meeting. FI-004 (J. Carlo, EDH Assistant, Texas Instruments, also Matsushita and 3Com) contains electronic operational notes and procedures for the Fiji meeting, specifically: procedures for paper submissions and for TIES registration, and information on the Issues List Documentation structure. FI-005 (R. Stuart) is the attendance roster. G.GEN FI-026 (G. Young, ADSL Forum Technical Committee Chair) is a liaison from ADSL Forum. In response to the Q4/15 review of the ADSL VoDSL draft working text WT-043v2, the ADSL Forum has identified areas of possible misinterpretation and key areas to be addressed in future work, including access network delay, burst error performance, latency tradeoffs, and dual latency. They plan to discuss a dual bearer system where the voice is carried on a TDM bearer separate from the packet- oriented data at their next meeting in May, 2000. FI-039 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) proposes an extended PSD mask (to lower carriers) for ADSL when operating without underlying service (all digital service), and an extended PSD mask for upstream and overlapped spectrum downstream. These issues were placed on the open issues list. It also proposes that the non-overlapped spectrum downstream PSD mask (for reduced NEXT) not be changed. See FI-090, below, for the agreement reached. FI-069 (T. Starr, Ameritech-SBC) provides the results of a field trial of G.992.1 equipment (69 user sites in Northern California) deployed in a splitterless configuration that demonstrated its feasibility, as well as information from SBC’s experiences in providing ADSL and HDSL services. It discusses service troubles due to bridged taps, RFI ingress, and loop imbalance, and proposes that G.992.1bis (G.dmt.bis), G.992.2bis (G.lite.bis), and G.shdsl specify: ¥ Performance with bridged taps more systematically and to cover a wider range of bridge taps. This was agreed for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis. ¥ Performance with high levels of RFI ingress and attempt to minimize the impact of high levels of RFI ingress. This was agreed for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis. ¥ Performance with moderate levels of loop imbalance. This was agreed for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis. ¥ A means for the transceiver to estimate loop imbalance. This was added to the issues list for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis. FI-070 (T. Starr, Ameritech-SBC) discusses SBC’s plans for loop plant upgrades, and proposes new performance objectives for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis, i.e.: ¥ G.992.1bis should have maximum performance for 12 kft 26 AWG loops as a primary objective ¥ A G.992.1bis performance target should be 2.5 Mbit/s downstream net rate and 400 kbit/s upstream net rate for an 12 kft 26 AWG loop with 10 HDSL crosstalkers. ¥ G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis should have maximum performance for 18 kft 24 AWG loops as a secondary objective ¥ A G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis performance target should be 768 kbit/s downstream net rate and 128 kbit/s upstream (this was agreed for G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis) net rate for an 18 kft 24 AWG loop with 10 HDSL crosstalkers (this was agreed for G.992.1bis). FI-071 (T. Starr, Ameritech-SBC) proposes that additional diagnostic information be specified in G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis including a quiet line PSD measurement and a line balance measurement. ¥ It was agreed that G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis shall periodically convey the following from the ATU- C to the ATU-R: Upstream SNR margin

Upstream Attenuation Downstream power control of ATU-C transmitted ¥ It was agreed that G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis shall provide a quiet line PSD (out-of-service) measurement test that conveys results to the other end of the line ¥ G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis shall provide a line balance measurement test that conveys results to the other end of the line. FI-072 (M. Tzannes, Aware) proposes a system design for G.dmt-bis and G.lite-bis, the main feature of which is the capability to seamlessly adapt the data rate of the system on-line. The seamless rate adaptation (SRA) capability provides many benefits, including increased loop reach by reducing the margin, improved robustness in a changing noise environment, fast and robust entry and exit protocols from low power modes, and seamless rate repartitioning between latency paths. This contribution outlines the specification of a new framing method for G.dmt-bis and G.lite-bis, which is required for the SRA capability, describes the SRA protocol and its features, as well as the use of SRA protocols for power management, and outlines the benefits of the proposed SRA system design. FI-084 (O. Neulender, Orckit) addresses spectral management issues for a network including ADSL over ISDN, currently deployed in some European countries. It proposes a concept (multi-band) in which the lower band (up to 140 kHz) be designed for both upstream and downstream transmission, the middle band (140-300 kHz) for upstream transmission, and the upper band (300 kHz - 1100 kHz) for downstream transmission. The rationale for this is two-fold: first, sharing a frequency range in which crosstalk is low and splitting bands in which crosstalk is high increases the overall performance, and second, attenuating the downstream transmission at the middle band protects the ADSL over ISDN service, which is sensitive to downstream NEXT at this frequency range. This approach is particularly relevant for SHDSL in view of the high level of deployment expected for this service. FI-086 (A. Ginesi, Nortel; L. Zhang and A. Yongacoglu, University of Ottawa) assesses the performance of two concatenated coding schemes through simulations. The two schemes include a forward-error-correction (FEC) code followed by a turbo-coder. Coding gains of the two schemes are evaluated with respect to the uncoded modulation and the Reed-Solomom coded-only case. Near optimum performance may be achieved by simplified structures. This contribution confirms the already noted dependence of net coding gain on system latency. It was submitted for information. FI-090 (M. Darveau, Nortel) presents a revision of the PSD proposal presented in NG-079r1 (CSR Vol. 10.08b) and NT-116 (CSR Vol. 10.11) for G.lite-bis, G.dmt-bis, and G.shdsl, implementing a low- band echo-cancelled region overlapping with normal POTS frequencies. Expected levels of Central Office Near-End Crosstalk (NEXT) are presented for various numbers of interferers and different percentage points of the statistical distribution. A depth of 30-dB is shown to be required in the gap between the two frequency bands to prevent the upstream performance from being self-NEXT limited. It was agreed for the non-overlapped case, the downstream PSD shall be unchanged. FI-094 (J. Mueller, 3Com, Nortel Networks, Pulsecom, Silicon Automation Systems, Centillium) identifies several likely scenarios where problems may occur with multiple DSL remote terminals (RT) co-located on the same premise wiring. Five technical concerns are noted: 1. Undefined impedance when the RT is unpowered. 2. Parallel impedance and possible reflections when the RT not in use is powered. 3. Channel contention during RT initiation. 4. Channel contention during CO initiation. 5. CO selection of a specific RT. It compares DSL multiple RT operation with telephony and cable modems in an attempt to gauge consumer expectations, and asks that Q4/15 agree to specify a mechanism in future DSL recommendations to support multiple RTs. It was agreed to define the non-operational impedance states of G.992.1bis and G.992.2bis. The remaining concerns associated with multiple DSL RT use are open.

FI-110 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) requests that efficiency of framing be considered not only from the viewpoint of net data rate but also from the viewpoint of power savings. In the past, several contributions have addressed an ADSL quiescent operation mode to statistically reduce total power consumption over a number of ADSL lines at the central office side, and it was agreed to further consider an ADSL quiescent mode. Relevant contributions are PO-038 (CSR Vol. 10.2), PO-089 (ad hoc report), MA-043 (CSR Vol. 10.04), NG-083 (CSR Vol. 10.08b). Changes to the current framing structure would facilitate introduction of an ADSL quiescent operation mode; therefore, it is proposed that such framing changes be considered as improvements of the framing efficiency, to enable power saving techniques. FI-121 (C.A. Subramanian, Silicon Automation Systems) provides studies on peak-to-average ratio assuming realistic parallel allocation of bits. By choosing the Reverb-Segue points (for 1bit and 2bit constellations) for parallel transmission of bits, no appreciable increase in PAR results. It proposes that Reverb-Segue constellation mapping be used for parallel transmission of bits. NT-061 (CSR Vol. 10.11) raised the issue of increase in peak-to-average ratio due to parallel bit allocation. FI-122 (W. Matsumoto, Mitsubishi) proposes a new TTCM system without conversion. The concatenated coding scheme TTCM (Turbo Trellis Coded Modulation) with RS (Reed Solomon) provides better performance than only RS code, TCM-RS (Trellis Coded Modulation-Reed Solomon), or only TTCM. The proposed structure of TTCM with RS is effective from the aspect of low complexity and computation cycle. Simulation and calculation results of net coding gain, latency and complexity of TTCM with RS in comparison with TCM-RS coding, and other type of turbo coding are shown. Interleaver is noted to be one of the factors that influence the performance of turbo code. Because the S-random interleaver provides very high performance, it is used in this contribution. But it is not practical to make architecture of random permutation; therefore, a deterministic permutation that performs like a semi-random permutation is required. A new deterministic interleaver will be proposed at the next meeting. FI-124 (C.A. Subramanian, Silicon Automation Systems) proposes Bit Repetition Messages (BRM) that can inherently impose limits on the maximum number of carriers and bits that are used in parallel transmission. NT-030, NT-050 (CSR Vol. 10.11) and NG-039 (CSR Vol. 10.08b) provided several BRMs and studies on performance improvements using parallel transmission of bits. FI-121 (above) and NT-061 (CSR Vol. 10.11) indicate that the maximum number of carriers on which the same symbol is sent, and the maximum number of such symbols have an implication on the peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the signal. FI-125 (G. Koppisetti, Silicon Automation Systems) proposes two impedance states in an ATU-R for the operation of multiple ATU-Rs at the RT side: a high impedance state (“HI” state), used for probing the line, and a characteristic impedance state (“CI” state), used during normal operation. FI-128, G.992.1.bis, G.992.2.bis Framing Mode Capabilities (J. Stiscia, R. Chen; Virata, Broadcom, Centillium, ESS. Orkit, PcTel), proposes that framing mode capabilities be exchanged during G.hs.bis. G.SHDSL (SINGLE-PAIR HIGH SPEED DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE TRANSCEIVERS) FI-A15 (S. Blackwell, editor G.shdsl) is the agenda and work plan. FI-U15r2 (S. Blackwell, Adtran) is the updated G.shdsl Issues List. FI-R15© (S. Blackwell, Adtran) is the draft G.shdsl Recommendation. The draft Recommendation progressed very well at this meeting; a near Determination draft is expected shortly. The plan is to Determine G.shdsl at SG15 in Geneva, April 3- 14, 2000. It is anticipated that additional technical work will be required before final approval. FI-020r1, G.shdsl: ETSI Provisionally Agreed PSDs (S. Blackwell, Adtran), proposes that the set of mandatory symmetric PSDs and the two optional asymmetric PSDs for SDSL provisionally agreed by ETSI TM6 in the December, 1999 meeting in Amsterdam be included in the European Annex of G.shdsl. It was agreed to adopt these PSDs for Annex B of G.shdsl.

FI-031 (R. Goodson, Adtran; D. Daecke, Infineon; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens AG) proposes text for PSD masks for the European annex of G.shdsl. The proposed text covers the PSDs provisionally agreed by ETSI for SDSL as proposed in NT-055 and NT-065r1 from Nashville (CSR Vol. 10.11). The specification text from this contribution was accepted. FI-023 (M. Rude, ADC Telecommunications) proposes changes in the G.shdsl working draft for the support of the optional two loop mode over the embedded operations channel (EOC). This represents a T1E1.4 consensus and was agreed. FI-027 (G.Young, ADSL Forum Technical Committee Chair) is a liaison from the ADSL Forum. It addresses the questions raised by Q4/15 regarding TPS-TC (Transport Protocol Specific- Transmission Convergence) layer for shdsl. It presents the current state of agreements in the ASDL Forum, including general and specific agreements on both single and dual bearer models. Further, it solicits Q4/15 opinions on the possible requirements for dynamic repartitioning of shdsl payload between the two traffic bearers as well as the Q4/15 view of any implications for ATM service control or management. FI-029 (J. Girardeau, Level One) reprints ETSI TM6 TD-44 from Amsterdam (CSR Vol. 10.11). Compared to the symmetric ETSI PSD in WD-18 from Edinburgh (CSR Vol. 10.10), and the Asymmetric ETSI PSD of TD-40 from Amsterdam, the use of asymmetric symbol rates with asymmetric PSD provides better margin in the presence of self NEXT, and provides better spectral compatibility with ADSL. This contribution was submitted for information only. FI-030 (R. Goodson, Adtran; D. Daecke, Infineon; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens AG) proposes text for PSD masks for the North American annex of G.shdsl. The proposed text covers the data rates and PSDs for North America. This is a modification of NT-066r1 (CSR Vol 10.11), incorporating the agreements reached in Nashville. It was agreed to include the specific text from FI-030r3. FI-032r1 (M. Darveau; Nortel) presents proposals for frequency-divided or partially frequency-divided power spectral density masks for G.shdsl. These masks are to be used in the optional frequency- asymmetric mode and would allow better performance by reducing the Near-End Crosstalk (NEXT) experienced by the G.shdsl receivers and would also provide superior spectral compatibility with ADSL. FI-032rl identifies some specific configurations and includes performance simulation results. FI-033 (M. Sorbara, Globespan; K. Sundstrom, Level One) proposes a list of transceiver parameters for transport during the G.shdsl pre-activation sequence in support of asymmetrical PSDs in general. Specifically, the parameters include: ¥ Bit Rate (symmetric for upstream and downstream) ¥ Upstream: -Number of bits per symbol (Symbol Rate) -PSD Mask Identifier Ð Upstream (and sub-parameters, if needed, e.g. NRZ pulse shaping with filter cut-off frequency, order roll-off, and sinc frequency) -Nominal Transmit Power ¥ Downstream: -Number of bits per symbol (Symbol Rate) -PSD Mask Identifier Ð Downstream (and sub-parameters, if needed, e.g., NRZ pulse shaping with filter cut-off frequency, order roll-off, and sinc frequency) -Nominal Transmit Power - Upstream FI-034 (R. Goodson, Adtran) addresses spectral compatibility issues with the NT-094 (CSR Vol. 10.11) PSDs, specifically, Agreed Item 2.6.3, and proposes an optional set of asymmetric PSDs for the 776/784 kbit/s framed data rates. These proposed PSDs have improved spectral compatibility and more modest transmit power requirements; they are believed to be an effective solution for minimizing interference into ADSL when used in a repeatered 4-wire DS-1 application. This was accepted. FI-035 (P. Reusens, Alcatel) proposes to extend the well defined symmetrical PSDs into a family of flexible PSDs, with optional asymmetry. The proposal is to couple the PSD to a flexible symbol rate.

The data rate must be the same in both directions, but the symbol rate can differ. It is the datarate divided by the number of bits per symbol. By using 3 user bits per symbol in both directions, the PSDs default to the known symmetrical set of WD-18 (TM6, September, 1999, CSR Vol. 10.10). By allowing the number of user bits per symbol in downstream to a value below the upstream value, a simple PSD asymmetry is reached for baseband PAM. With 2 bit/symbol in downstream and 3 bit/symbol in upstream, the family of asymmetrical PSDs of this proposal can fall below the 2.0 Mbit/s and 2.3 Mbit/s masks provisionally agreed in ETSI TM6 in December in Amsterdam (CSR Vol. 10.11). FI-036 (L. Cohen, PairGain) proposes optional asymmetric PSD templates, for inclusion into the North American Annex of G.shdsl, for G.shdsl operating at 1544 kbit/s and 768 kbit/s data rates. Specifically, it proposes that the OPTIS mask be optional for G.shdsl operating at 1544 kbit/s, and defines a new asymmetric template for optional use in G.shdsl operating at 768 kbit/s. Optional asymmetric templates will significantly increase the potential reach capacity of both mid-rate G.shdsl and ADSL services. The adoption of both symmetric and asymmetric PSD template options will allow flexibility for near-term product improvements without delaying current product deployment. FI-042 (E. Shusterman, Orckit) demonstrates that the suggested symmetrical SDSL mask of WD-18 is not compatible with ADSL over ISDN for high rates, especially if the ADSL over ISDN is implemented in FDM mode, which is a common deployment in Europe. It suggests an alternative asymmetrical SDSL mask for high rates, compatible to ADSL over ISDN and with a significant performance advantage over the proposed symmetrical masks in the presence of FSAN noise. It concludes that a considerable performance gain in both ADSL and SDSL services will be obtained if both the ADSL and the SDSL masks are adopted for ADSL over ISDN environment. FI-049 (R. Goodson, Adtran) analyzes the use of the agreed symmetric and asymmetric PSDs for repeatered application in North America. It concludes: ¥ That all rates at and below 840 kbit/s using symmetric PSDs require no deployment restrictions ¥ That all rates from 840 up to and including 1608 kbit/s have no greater effect than HDSL repeaters ¥ That rates above 1608 kbit/s should use 4-wire repeatered system to deliver their payload Further, it proposes that support for symmetric PSDs should be required for all rates. Use of asymmetric PSDs (designed for LT-NT operation), at rates where they have been defined, should be optional on the first link with mandatory use of the symmetric PSDs on subsequent links, unless an asymmetric PSD is shown to have equal or better spectral compatibility than the corresponding symmetric PSD for that rate. This was agreed. FI-123 (L. Cohen, PairGain) presents preliminary laboratory performance test results of G.dmt modems in the presence of crosstalk from G.shdsl repeaters with transmit PSD templates proposed in FI-049. Using remote colocated 24-disturber HDSL crosstalk as the reference impairment, similarly colocated 24-disturber G.shdsl repeater crosstalk at the 1544 kbit/s data rate reduced ADSL channel capacity at all available reaches, but more importantly prevented system startup at reaches beyond 13 kft in 26 AWG PIC. This indicates that the proposed G.sdhsl repeater PSDs may not be truly spectrally compatible with ADSL. Based on this preliminary test, this contribution recommends not adopting the currently proposed symmetric repeater PSDs (FI-049) until the cause of the startup failure and reach degradation is determined. FI-136, Optional Asymmetric PSD Templates for North American Annex (L. Cohen, PairGain), was withdrawn. FI-050r1 (R. Goodson, Adtran) describes issues related to signal regenerator operation, specifically: multi-rate operation and line probing, synchronous clocking, and diagnosing network problems. It proposes an appropriate staged startup sequence for use with an arbitrary number of regenerators, describing proposed startup processes for STU-R, STU-C, and SRU initiation. It also addresses the issues of collisions, timeouts, and retrains, and offers a simple resolution to the potential problem of segment failure, which would necessarily result in failure of the startup procedure for the entire span.

It was agreed to use a staged start sequence and to include an informative Appendix based on FI-050r1 describing a typical start-up sequence. FI-107 (S. Blackwell, Adtran) offers text for the specification of regenerator operation consistent with the proposed methodology described in FI-050r1. This text was agreed for inclusion in Annex D (signal regeneration operation) of G.shdsl. FI-051 (R. Goodson, Adtran, Conexant, Infineon, Globespan) proposes text for a number of TPS-TC framing modes for Annex E of G.shdsl to support Clear Channel Data, DS1 / Fractional DS1, and E1 / Fractional E1. Specifically, it proposes a new agreement for Section 8 (framing) of the Open Issues List. This was agreed. FI-052 (S. Blackwell, Adtran, Globespan) proposes code points for G.hs-bis to support G.shdsl, as well as related explanatory text for G.shdsl parameters. It represents an attempt to build upon the agreed code points from NT-035 (CSR Vol. 10.11) to produce a complete set of G.shdsl code points. It was agreed to adopt the additional code points from FI-052r4. FI-053 (S. Blackwell, Adtran, Infineon, Globespan) proposes text for micro-interruptions, based in part on the text from the T1E1 HDSL2 Draft Specification. Micro-interruptions occur due to mechanical action (e.g., wind, vibration) on copper wire junctions causing the loss of the transmission link and span power for the duration of the micro-interruption. Specifically, it proposes a new agreement in Section 4 (service requirements) of the Open Issues List, for the specification of micro- interruption performance requirements. Micro-interruptions less than 10 ms, or 1 ms when span powered, shall not reset G.shdsl transceivers. This was agreed. FI-054r2 (S. Blackwell, Adtran, Infineon, Siemens, Globespan) proposes values for the return loss parameters, based on the ETSI SDSL agreements reached in the Amsterdam ETSI meeting in December, 1999. It was agreed to adopt the text from NT-072. The return loss specification for Annex A was agreed to be -12dB from 50kHz to fs/2. The Annex B specification was agreed to be -14dB from 20kHz to fs/2. It was also agreed to leave open the Annex B specification should ETSI reconsider its requirements for SDSL. FI-055r1 (R. Goodson, Adtran, Globespan) proposes text for the performance specification for Annex A (North American performance) of G.shdsl, based in part on the text from the HDSL2 draft document. This was agreed. FI-056r1 (R. Goodson, Adtran, Globespan) proposes text for the performance specification for Annex B (European performance) of G.shdsl, based on the text from the ETSI SDSL specification. This was agreed. FI-057 (S. Blackwell, Adtran) provides changes to close some of the TBDs and correct errors and omissions in the current G.shdsl document. FI-058© (S. Blackwell, Adtran) provides text modifications to harmonize the text of G.shdsl with the December 10, 1999 default letter ballot of HDSL2. FI-059, Synchronous Narrowband Transport over SHDSL Frames (D. Daecke, Infineon; A. Tannhäuser, Siemens AG; M. Simkins, Lucent; R. Bahalul, Conexant), presents an efficient method for mapping ISDN BRA or POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) channels on SHDSL frames. SHDSL can deliver multiple ISDN BRA or combinations of ISDN BRA and 64 kbit/s data channels as well as combinations of multiple POTS and n x 64 kbit/s channels for broadband data transport. The specific solution described is for information only. Q4/15 agreed that G.shdsl shall have an application-specific annex for synchronously embedded ISDN BRA like the ETSI SDSL standard. FI-077 (R. Goodson, Adtran) proposes specification text for interoperable span powering for North America, based principally on the text from the HDSL2 Draft Document and from T1.601 (ISDN). It includes the span powering text from HDSL2 and adds the sealing (wetting) current and metallic termination specifications from ISDN. The four proposed new agreements were accepted:

¥ That the span powering specification from HDSL2 be adopted for G.shdsl (Annex A) ¥ That the use of wetting current shall be optional for G.shdsl (Annex A) devices not supporting span powering ¥ That G.shdsl (Annex A) STU-R and SRU-R devices shall implement metallic terminations, as used in ISDN NTs ¥ To adopt the text from FI-077 Section 2, for the Annex A specification of span powering, wetting current, and metallic terminations FI-078 (R. Goodson, Adtran) proposes specification text for interoperable span powering for Annex B (European) applications, based principally on the text from ETSI SDSL. This was agreed. FI-079 (R. Goodson, Adtran) discusses the peak to RMS ratio and the associated analog line driver power consumption of three different PSDs agreed for use in the North American Annex of G.shdsl. The three PSDs are: Downstream HDSL2 PSD Upstream HDSL2 PSD 6th order Butterworth PSD The input to the spectral shaping filter is assumed to be uniform, and the pdf at the line driver is determined. The results show that the higher power and higher peak to RMS ratio of the HDSL2 PSDs yields a higher peak voltage at the line driver, and a corresponding higher analog power consumption. FI-091 (R. Goodson, Adtran) provides draft text for the asymmetric PSD masks for 776/784 kbit/s framed data rates as analyzed in FI-034 (above). This text was agreed for the North American Annex of G.shdsl. FI-092 (R. Goodson, Adtran) describes how power back-off can be applied to G.shdsl. Although power back-off is not required for spectral compatibility purposes or to enhance the performance of the G.shdsl link, it allows the reduction of egress and power consumption and reduces the dynamic range of the receiver when the units are back to back. Further, there is a precedent for power back-off in HDSL2 and ADSL. A mandatory default power back-off is derived for all G.shdsl PSDs. The maximum power back-off curves are left TBD. This was agreed with the text from FI-135. FI-135 (S. Blackwell, Adtran) conveys the results of an ad hoc discussion on Power Backoff specification text. It provides the Editor’s view of the consensus of the members of the Ad Hoc group. FI-093 (R. Goodson, Adtran) analyzes the use of the agreed symmetric and asymmetric PSDs for repeatered application in Europe. The use of repeaters for a given G.shdsl rate will have the same effect as the corresponding mask from TS 101 080 and TS 101 135 under which it fits. Rates that do not exactly fit under one of those masks will have to be studied on a network by network basis. It was agreed that: ¥ Support for symmetric PSDs should be required for all rates (as already provisionally agreed in ETSI) ¥ Use of Asymmetric PSDs (designed for LT-NT operation), at rates where they have been defined, should be optional on the first link with mandatory use of the symmetric PSDs on subsequent links unless an asymmetric is shown to have equal to better spectral compatibility than the corresponding symmetric PSD for that rate FI-101 (L. Frenkel, Orckit) suggests text for the draft G.shdsl recommendation (FI-R15©); to facilitate the use of constellation shaping with minor supplements to a conventional Tomlinson precoder. Receivers for Tomlinson precoded UC-PAM signals will be able to decode the signal and utilize the shaping gain without any requirement of additional functionality. The only implication on the receiver is the requirement to track a gradual change of power after startup, which can be performed by the existing feed-forward equalizer or digital AGC. The proposed method offers a shaping gain of about 0.75 dB with a moderate additional complexity and a significant reduction of PAR for the case of the HDSL2 mask. This contribution shows that the shaping gain is achievable also with the symmetrical

14 Vol. 11.2 Copyright © CSR 2000 March-A 2000 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW mask (WD-18, TM6), without increasing the PAR. This is an opportunity to allow future improvement of SDSL modems by including minor hooks in the present standard. FI-105, G.shdsl: Scrambler polynomials for PMD preactivation sequence (R. Jonsson, Conexant), proposes text to allow selection between several predefined scrambler polynomials to generate probing signals that have different characteristics. By varying the polynomial of the scrambler, the characteristics of the line probe signal can be changed to meet different objectives; for example, the scrambler could be configured to generate a pseudo-random sequence, a single tone, or a periodic sequence. It was agreed to support the scrambler polynominals from FI-105 and that support of the complete set is mandatory in the transmitter. FI-109 (R. Jonsson, Conexant) proposes to have a lower limit on the transmit PSD and makes specific proposals about the lower limits for some candidate transmit PSDs. It addresses the issue of containing the transmit power to control crosstalk into other systems, but notes that it may not adequately address the issue of interoperability. If the constraint on the PSD is only in the form of a mask providing an upper limit on the PSD, interoperability may be compromised; therefore, to facilitate interoperability, specifying a lower limit as well as an upper limit for the transmit PSD is desirable. FI-131 (G. Eisler, Conexant) proposes inclusion of test cases for data rates of 192kbit/s, 768kbit/s, and 2304kbit/s in the North American performance requirements for G.shdsl. This was agreed. FI-134 (R. Goodson, Adtran) proposes text for a byte-oriented clear channel TPS-TC framing mode for Annex E (Application specific TSP-TC framing) of G.shdsl to support various packet-based services. This was agreed. G.VDSL FI-U11 (S. Palm, Matsushita, editor G.vdsl) provides the updated Issues List for G.vdsl as of January 25, 2000. FI-R11 (S. Palm) is the Draft G.vdsl Recommendation. FI-A11 and FI-A11r1 (S. Palm) outline the work program for G.vdsl and the rough order of topics in the G.vdsl sessions. It should be viewed in conjunction with the G.vdsl updated issues list FI-U11. During discussion at this meeting it was agreed to divide the VDSL bandwidth between 138 kHz and 12 MHz into a four band plan; a mix of asymmetric (22Mbit/s downstream and 3 Mbit/s upstream) and symmetic (13Mbit/s) data rates in North America were agreed. FI-022 (liaison from ETSI TM6) presents the output from the TM6 Amsterdam meeting (29 November Ð 3 December, 1999). It provides an update on the ETSI TM6 current work status as well as input to the open issues for G.vdsl, which were published as NT-U11 of the Nashville meeting (CSR Vol. 10.11). ETSI Draft transceiver specification for VDSL (TS 101 270-2) is now in a stable state with provisional agreement to the specification achieved at the Amsterdam meeting. The work-plan is to approve this specification at the ETSI TM6 meeting in Montreux, Switzerland, scheduled for February 28 Ð March 3, 2000. FI-047 (G. McAninch, GTE) contends that the point has been reached where a decision on whether a VDSL specification is wanted or not, and that if so, then both DMT and SCM line codes must be included to achieve a VDSL specification in a timely manner. FI-073 (K. Jacobsen, Texas Instruments) examines the ramifications of allowing different power back- off methods in a single binder group. It shows that FEXT from lines using the equalized-FEXT method is detrimental to upstream performance on lines using the reference length method. The impact of the equalized-FEXT method on lines using the reference length method cannot be predicted, as the lengths of those lines are not known to other transceivers. This paper illustrates clearly that the upstream performance on a loop using a particular UPBO (upsteam power back-off) method cannot be projected accurately if other UPBO methods are allowed in the same binder. Thus, it concludes, the use of different UPBO methods in a binder group is not a good idea. Further, it addresses the open issue of what power management and power cutback methods should be specified, and raises the issue of whether a single upstream power back-off method should be specified for VDSL.

FI-074 (K. Jacobsen, Texas Instruments) discusses various practical considerations related to upstream power back-off for VDSL. It concludes that standardization of a single upstream power back-off method is the only viable alternative for VDSL. As allowing more than one UPBO method in a binder results in performance degradations to some lines, and unbundling is a reality, and as communication between equipment owned by different parties is highly unlikely, a single UPBO method must be standardized. In addition to the two issues mentioned in FI-073 (above), this contribution addresses the open issue of whether the transmit PSD should be spectrally shaped (non- flat) in G.vdsl PBO. FI-075 (K. Jacobsen, Texas Instruments) presents a proposal for upstream power back-off for VDSL, based on the concept of a global desired receive PSD (GDR PSD) which can be used to describe virtually any upstream power back-off algorithm. The GDR PSD is transmitted from the VTU-O to the VTU-R during initialization. The VTU-R then adjusts its transmit PSD such that the signal arriving at the VTU-O has approximately the GDR PSD. In addition to the issues addressed in FI-073 and FI-074 (above), it also addresses whether upstream power back-off should be autonomous or delegatable in G.vdsl. FI-081 (G. Ungerboeck, Broadcom) explores the significant differences between SCM and DMT performance in the presence of impulse noise. A simplified analysis is presented showing that DMT is essentially incompatible with requirements for low latency. FI-082 (V. Oksman, Lucent and Coalition members) proposes a specification of a VDSL embedded operation channel (EOC). The specified EOC can perform both internal management functions to support VDSL transceiver and can be used as a clear management channel between the VTU-O and VTU-R. The proposed specification is based on the EOC specification used in ITU-T Recommendation G.992 with the aim to unify as possible the VDSL and the ADSL system management. It also complies with ITU-T Recommendation G.997.1 (G.ploam). It was agreed to use the text provided in this document as working text. However the EOC transmission and message format is still open. FI-083 (G. Ungerboeck, Broadcom) analyzes the effect of constrained spectral efficiency in MCM subchannels, and demonstrates by numerical evaluation a spectral efficiency advantage of SCM. It was offered for information only, with the intent to stimulate investigation of situations where practical SCM and MCM realizations might differ in performance, and shed light on the reasons for limiting the spectral subchannel efficiency to 11 bit/symbol in the current DMT proposal. FI-100 (S. Ölçer, IBM; J. Cioffi, Texas Instruments; M. Sorbara, Globespan) describes transceiver training for FMT-based VDSL modems. It shows that an FMT transceiver can be initialized by sending the same set of sequences as those used for the initialization of DMT-based ADSL transceivers. It presents simulation results to illustrate system behavior with the proposed training procedure. FI-102 (M. Isaksson, Telia AB) is a follow up on NT-092 (CSR Vol. 10.11), which noted the following two dangers and emphasized the need to address them, but offered no solutions: 1. A reasonable upstream capacity is needed. At least two upstream bands between 1.1 and 10 MHz are necessary; thus at least four bands should be used below 10MHz 2. Power back-off methods are needed FI-102 surveys the original problem, and suggests a path to solutions, offering performance results to support it. Mixing services in the same binder with the user distributed along the binder was investigated, including tests of power back-off and the use of an optimal four-band solution in this setting. These tests were then compared to a seven-band solution, which often achieved double upstream capacity of the four-band plan, and met ETSI performance requirements. In conclusion, it suggests that a set of mixed service and power back-off scenarios be defined for VDSL and be assessed before deciding on a frequency plan.

FI-106 (D. Jones, Broadcom) proposes a VDSL spectral plan for use in North America, based on a recent T1E1.4 method for the identification of good candidate spectral plans, and on a comparison of several plans generated using these techniques. The proposed plan maximizes symmetric 13 Mbit/s VDSL reach, according to the ANSI optimization method, subject to the constraint that the winning plan must deliver 22 Mbit/s downstream and 3 Mbit/s upstream over 3 kft (without bridged taps) and 2.7 kft (with bridged taps) of #26 AWG unshielded plant in a FTTCab deployment. This proposed plan has the benefit of providing near maximum medium asymmetric reach while also delivering respectable symmetric performance. This combination of reach attributes is the key to large-scale North American FTTCab build-outs necessary for widespread asymmetric and symmetric VDSL deployments. The proposed plan also has the practical advantage of requiring only 4 bands, and of using transition bands near the two most important amateur bands. FI-108 (J. Cook, BT) presents an analysis of a compromise suggested at the ETSI meeting in Amsterdam: that a four band plan below 12MHz be designed, and that only services S1-S3 and A1-A3 be evaluated. The analysis is based on the simulation basics described in ETSI TM6 Edinburgh WD- 29 (CSR Vol. 10.10). Individual results are given, and insights into the ongoing process of finding a compromise band allocation are offered. FI-111 (V. Oksman, Lucent) proposes requirements for the FDD (Frequency Division Duplexing) VDSL out-of-band part of the transmit PSD mask. The proposal is based on the criterion, which limits the performance degradation due to the NEXT generated by the out-of-band signal to a negligible value relative to the VDSL receiver noise floor. It takes into account the general requirements for VDSL PSD mask for Europe, Japan and North America; it is independent of the applied modulation method. FI-112 (Q. Wang, US West) notes that VDSL network architectures and service opportunities are very different in different regions of the world; in particular, the telecommunication industry in North America is unique and highly competitive. Therefore, it proposes that a regional spectral plan for North America be specified to maximize the opportunities of a successful VDSL deployment. FI-113 (Q. Wang, US West) proposes that the VDSL spectrum plan for North America should maximize the reach performance of data rates of 3 Mbit/s upstream and a minimum of 22 Mbit/s downstream. FI-114 (N. King, Infineon) suggests two example flat-spectrum Upstream Power Back-Off (UPBO) algorithms that satisfy the requirements of the two service modes agreed for the proposed draft of the ETSI VDSL standard: Mixed-Service (equal penalty) and Long Loop Protection (maximum reach). FI-115 (K, Starnberger, Infineon, Broadcom, Metalink) provides an overview and analysis of 4-band allocations that are limited to 10 and 12 MHz. It compares the allocations with a 4-band allocation using the complete spectrum up to 20 MHz, and finds that the full-range allocation is superior even for low and medium bitrate VDSL services. It concludes that a truncation of the spectrum is not desirable for VDSL. FI-116 (T. Pollet, Alcatel) proposes to specify an out-of-band PSD mask with controlled overlap, which is to be respected in every spectral band of the G.VDSL spectral plan. FI-117 (T. Pollet, Alcatel) illustrates the impact of the upstream PSD control on the development of the spectral plan. It shows that the power control mechanism influences the “differential capacity,” which is the basis on which spectral plans for VDSL are developed. It proposes the development of a frequency plan based on the use of an agreed upstream transmitter power control mechanism for mixed service operation in the same binder. FI-118 (C. Hwang, Samsung) describes a splitterless VADSL system that uses DMT over the frequency from 0.03 MHz to 4.4 MHz. Its complexity is much lower than that of VDSL, and it can serve asymmetric 19.5 Mbit/s /2.4 Mbit/s over 1 km and 6.4 Mbit/s symmetric service up to 0.92 km. It also addresses the benefit of defining such a low-end VDSL system.

FI-119 (C. Hwang, Samsung) analyzes the influence of defining low-end VADSL system to VDSL system. The spectrum plan of VADSL system is optimized first, then the VDSL frequency plan is optimized assuming that the low spectrum plan is the same as that of VADSL. FI-119 compares the optimized VDSL frequency plan with previously known frequency plans suggested by many companies. FI-120 (C. Hwang, Samsung) proposes a new PBO algorithm. It proves mathematically that the performance of short loop is not degraded by PBO and the SNR loss in long loop is 3dB at the worst case in 2 VTU-R case. Computer simulation shows that the performance of VDSL can be improved by employing the proposed PBO. G.PNT FI-U12r1 (J. Magill, editor G.pnt) is the updated Issues List for phone line networking tranceivers, including the changes from the Q4/15 meeting in Nashville, November, 1999. FI-G12 (J. Magill, editor G.pnt) provides the guidelines for spectral compatibility testing. FI-040 (T. Cole, AMD) presents AMD’s statement with regard to its Intellectual Property as it relates to the work in Q4/15. FI-041 (T. Cole, AMD, and HPNA members) proposes a number of reference models to provide a framework upon which to base discussions of G.pnt. Agreements reached include: 1. G.pnt defines PHY and MAC base level functionality. 2. Definition of host-side interfaces will be in terms of IEEE 802.3. 3. G.pnt operates on a shared medium single segment network. 4. Multiple G.pnt network segments can be connected at layer 2 or 3. 5. PHY layer repeaters will not be specified. FI-064 (S. Strauss, Lucent and HPNA members) proposes a refined PSD mask as defined and ratified in the HomePNA Version 2 specification. This proposed PSD mask is slightly modified from the baseline G.pnt PSD mask agreed in Nuremberg, in August 1999 (NG-102, CSR Vol. 10.08b). It clarifies and improves the definition and associated measurement conditions, and sets bounds on measurement techniques used to measure the PSD of G.pnt terminals. It does not represent an increase in power levels from the previous agreement for G.pnt PSD objectives. This was agreed. FI-065 (S. Strauss, Lucent and HPNA members) recommends adding the following new open issue to G.pnt under point 2.4: What parameters (such as input impedance) should be specified for ADSL infrastructure equipment such as DSL micro filters, POTS splitters, ADSL modem devices, and NID isolators, to ensure compatibility between devices connected to the same home phoneline network? As the deployment of ADSL at the customer premise and home phoneline networking (HPN) moves ahead, care must be taken that the services using the same media are mutually compatible. In the process of system development, testing, and field trials, instances were discovered where ADSL infrastructure equipment connected to the media exhibited characteristics that were detrimental to the phoneline networking channel. It also proposes adding similar open issues to G.dmt-bis and G.lite-bis. FI-080 (K. Chu, Conexant, 3COM, AMD, Broadcom, Conexant, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Mitsubishi, Motorola, NetRidium Communications, Texas Instruments) discusses the progression of work on G.pnt and announces planned contributions from the source companies. Contributions on the following topics are planned for the period up to and including the SG15 meeting in April, 2000: ¥ Finalizing the definition of the PSD mask including measurement ¥ Definition of the characteristics of isolation filters for optional use with G.pnt devices ¥ Proposals for the G.pnt system reference model ¥ Discussion on protocol domain collision protection Further contributions will be made to subsequent Q4/15 meetings to complete the definition of the G.pnt technology.

FI-098 (S. Palm, Broadcom, Compaq, Conexant, Intel, Lucent, NetRidium, Texas Instruments) proposes a set of CSMA/CD behavior for G.pnt and other phone network terminals sharing a wire with G.pnt devices. With the agreed-upon average power and PSD, both code- and time-division multiple access are possible means to share the bandwidth. Frequency-division and frequency-hopping methods are not recommended, as either the average power or PSD requirements in FI-064 will not be met. Given the restricted frequency band, the desire for high data rate (>10 Mbit/s) communications, and the interference environment, time division of transmissions from different devices is proposed as the best approach for controlling access. A basic media access discipline employing CSMA/CD and frame format for phone network terminals on in-premise phone wire is proposed. It was agreed to include this frame format as working text, subject to equal consideration of future proposals. G.LITE-BIS FI-U18 (T. Cole, editor G.lite-bis) is the updated G.lite-bis Issues List. FI-A18 (T. Cole) is the agenda and work plan. The meeting agreed that the goal is to Determine G.lite-bis at the first Study Group meeting in 2001 (estimated to be March 2001). In discussion it was agreed to develop a quiescent mode proposal; it was also agreed to develop a definition and classification of pulsating crosstalk and to analyze its effect on G.lite transceivers. FI-028 (G. Young, ADSL Forum Technical Committee Chair) is a liaison from the ADSL Forum providing an update on the Forum’s most recent knowledge of the status of fast-retrain interoperability testing for G.992.2. It identifies immediate issues with the current Fast Retrain state diagram including: weakness in the Fast Retrain activation sequence (duration of C-RECOV and R-REVERB- FR1), and specification of point of sufficient ATU-R sample clock stability in Fast Retrain initialization; it offers observations summarizing the overall interoperability performance of Fast Retrain at the ADSL Forum events. FI-043 (K. Harris, Nortel) reviews the current North American test suite for G.lite-bis, considering loop length, crosstalkers, loop frequency response, noise at the pilot tone and the difference between line capacity and target rate. It proposes consolidating the extended loop tests into the required test coverage, and removing tests that add little information on modem performance. It recommends 12 tests that will provide substantially equivalent coverage to today’s test suite of 20 tests. FI-044 (K. Harris, Nortel) proposes performance rates that should be achieved with G.992.2 modems with North American test cases when crosstalk and ingress impairments are applied as recommended in NT-036 (CSR Vol. 10.11). It presents two sets of recommended rate tables: the first adjusts rates down from their current targets to allow for the increased impairment due to RFI; the second increases rates to make the margin between loop capacity and target rates more consistent across tests. It was agreed to accept both tables and to move North American test cases 14-18 from extended to mandatory. FI-060 (S. Abbas, Centillium) provides an introduction to the efficient framing mode related proposals in FI-061 and FI-062. FI-061 (S. Abbas, Centillium) provides the definition of an efficient framing mode for use in both G.lite-bis and G.dmt-bis for low data rate cases. It includes all the features for an efficient framing mode agreed in Nashville. FI-062 (S. Abbas, Centillium) proposes how to select the efficient framing mode described in FI-061. FI-076 (A. Ginesi, Nortel) proposes to remove the constraints on the minimum allowed index to be used during the transmission of REVERB and SEGUE for G.992.2. These constraints are unnecessary and may, in fact, also cause performance degradation. Furthermore, no such constraints are present in G.992.1. It was agreed that there is a typo in G.992.2. The sentences in the appendices that define the R-REVERB should state the first sub-carrier is i and not i>5. The editor will notify the TSB. FI-087 (M. Wingrove, Nortel) proposes that the same fine gains applied during data symbols be applied during the Sync symbol, and that the note recommending constraint of the fine gains to +/- 2.5 dB about gsync be removed.

FI-088 (M. Wingrove, Nortel) proposes that all systems shall provide for upstream power control to permit optimum FEXT control. It was agreed that the ATU-C receiver will set the upstream gain table to minimize the excess margin relative to the maximum noise margin in G.ploam. FI-099 (J. Mueller, 3Com) addresses issue 9.2 of the G.lite-bis issues list (Open August 2, 1999): Should G.lite-bis provide a method to modify a profile during the profile selection process? The profile modification procedure, first presented in NG-107 (CSR Vol. 10.08b) and NT-111 (CSR Vol. 10.11), allows existing profiles to be adapted during the fast retrain to match current channel conditions. The motivation for this is to avoid the 10 second penalty associated with a full initialization should a suitable profile not be found. FI-099 identifies various typical channel conditions for which profile modification is necessary to avoid the penalty of a full initialization, and requests that G.lite-bis provide a method for such profile modification during the selection process. This was agreed. FI-126 (L. Cohen, PairGain) proposes a method for combining Trellis coded modulation, with single- bit constellations to make more efficient use of available channel capacity in DMT systems. Through one-bit constellations and fine transmit gain adjustment in individual tones, DMT systems can utilize available channel capacity nearly as efficiently as DMT systems that support pure fractional bits per tone, via methods such as parallel transmission of information. It also describes a relatively simple procedure for extending Trellis coded modulation to single-bit constellations. It was agreed to consider the inclusion of Trellis coding. FI-130 (A. Ginesi, Nortel) proposes to simplify and improve the existing Fast Retrain (FR) procedure for G.lite-bis to make it more closely resemble a shortened Full Initialization procedure. Toward this end, B&G message exchange capabilities would be given to the ATUs together with longer MEDLEY sequences. In total, the duration of FR would need to be extended by only 0.627 secs. Because this proposed procedure is non-line profile-based, it is much more reliable as there is an extremely low chance of FR failures; also, it is less complicated as it eliminates the burden associated with line profile management. FI-133 (I. Sharfer, Orckit, PC-Tel Inc., Centillium Communications Inc., Virata) suggests a scheme for seamless rate adaptation, which does not require any changes in the standard ADSL framing, and utilizes the DRA protocol, which was already defined by the standard. This scheme does not require a decoupling of the framing from the physical level, and is also compatible with the efficient framing mode suggested in FI-060. FI-138 (T. Cole, ADSL ad hoc) represents the consensus recommendation of the ADSL ad hoc to progress various open items in the G.lite.bis Issues List. Other than the typo identified (see FI-076), no open issues were closed. The framing mode ad hoc agreed: • Framing mode changes will not be Determined in April, 2000. • A single framing mode with multiple parameters will be supported. • There will be automatic agreement in June to adopt S de-coupling if there are no counter proposals. S de-coupling means no alignment between FEC output frames and constellation encoder input frames. G.DMT-BIS FI-U17 (F. Van der Putten, editor G.dmt-bis) is the updated G.dmt-bis Issues List. The meeting agreed that the goal is to Determine G.dmt-bis at the first Study Group meeting in 2001 (estimated to be March 2001). In discussion it was agreed to develop a quiescent mode proposal; It was also agreed to develop a definition and classification of pulsating crosstalk and to analyze its effect on G.dmt transceivers. FI-038 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) proposes an extension of the G.992.1 Trellis encoder and decoder for proper operation with 1-bit constellations. It proposes that a pair of 1-bit sub-carrier be considered

20 Vol. 11.2 Copyright © CSR 2000 March-A 2000 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW as a virtual 2-bit sub-carrier in the Trellis encoder with the resulting encoded bit pair transmitted on the original sub-carriers using 1-bit constellations. The main parts of the G.992.1 Trellis encoder and decoder would not be changed, and in the case where the receiver does not request 1-bit constellations in the bi&gi table, the G.992.1 Trellis decoder could still be used. FI-063 (O. Neulender, Orckit) proposes a new, high-performance mask for ADSL over POTS which is spectrally compatible with FDD ADSL over ISDN (G.992.1 Annex B ADSL), and offers more symmetrical rates than present day ADSL over POTS services. The proposed mask is particularly suitable for medium reach loops up to 4 km. The upstream of this mask utilizes the lower spectrum up to 276 kHz, and the downstream uses the frequency band up to 138 kHz and above 276 kHz. Since there is no downstream transmission between 138 kHz and 276 kHz, the mask is spectrally compatible with FDD and standard ADSL over ISDN upstream. The performance of the proposed mask and its compatibility with FDD ADSL over ISDN is studied under the FSAN noise model B environment described in ETSI TM6 TD-37, (Amsterdam, 1999) which is a suitable noise model for an ADSL environment. The FDD ADSL over ISDN mask used in this contribution is recommended for future use for spectral management purposes. Standard ADSL over POTS, as well as the suggested SHDSL mask of WD-18 for high rates, are not compatible with FDD ADSL over ISDN services currently deployed in some European countries (see FI-042, above). FI-068 (Y. Kikunaga, Toshiba; Japanese Manufacturers) proposes draft text to be adopted as G.992.1 Annex H. This Annex describes specifications unique to Synchronized Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line (SSDSL) transceivers for use in the same cable binder as TCM-ISDN defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.961 Appendix III. This SSDSL transmission method allows symmetric data rates in the range of 192 kbit/s to 1.6 Mbit/s with 32 kbit/s granularity using a scheme synchronized with TCM-ISDN. Future revisions of this draft text will be necessary as the Annex is developed. This was agreed. FI-096 (S. Palm, editor G.dmt) identifies three residual editorial issues in G.dmt, and proposes corresponding fixes. FI-097 (K. Harris, Nortel) proposes test cases, and performance rates to be achieved, when crosstalk and RFI ingress impairments are applied as recommended in NT-036. These proposals are unchanged from NT-036; they were presented for convenience. This was agreed but support for the tests and rates in FI-097 remains open. FI-129 (J. Stiscia and R. Chen, Virata, Broadcom, Centillium, ESS, PC Tel) proposes that framing mode 3 of G.992.1 be a mandatory framing mode capability of G.992.1.bis (this was agreed), and that the support of multiple framing modes be agreed. FI-132 (K. Harris, Nortel) proposes restructuring the new North American performance requirements for G.dmt-bis in the style used in G.992.2, and addition of RFI tests as specified in FI-097. Current tests would be kept, but reformatted into this style. This was agreed. G.HS-BIS FI-U16r1 (L. Brown, Motorola ISG, editor G.hs-bis) is the updated G.hs-bis Issues List. FI-021, (S. Blackwell, Adtran) proposes the addition of an annex to G.994.1 for the support of multi- pair systems (e.g., 4 wire HDSL). It is a resubmission of NT-053 (CSR Vol. 10.11), which was not completely addressed at the Nashville meeting. FI-045 (R. Jonsson, Conexant) proposes specific text with mild constraints on the transmit filter for the 4 kHz signaling family. The modulated signal as defined in G.994.1 specifies non return to zero (NRZ) or square pulse shaping. Also included in the definition is the capability for additional transmit filtering. For the 4 kHz signaling family, the specifics of this additional filtering remains to be determined. This contribution proposes a set of requirements on the frequency response of this filter so as to minimize the distortion on the NRZ transmit data signal.

FI-046 (R. Goodson, Adtran) proposes maximum power levels per carrier for G.hs carrier set A4. Currently in G.994.1, the maximum power level per carrier for carrier set A4 (4 kHz half-duplex) in Table 3 of section 6.1.2 is TBD. FI-066 (M. Ueda, Sumitomo Electric; Japanese Manufacturers) proposes the addition of code points to G.994.1 to support G.992.1 Annex H. These code points fit within the existing structure of G.994.1, so no new messages or transactions would need to be defined. The proposal in this contribution is the same as NT-097 (CSR Vol. 10.11), except that two additional parameters were assigned in NPar(2) octet. FI-085 (D. Daecke, Infineon) proposes maximum power level per carrier for carrier set A4 (4 kHz half-duplex) in Table 3 of section 6.1.2 of G.994.1. Currently, these power levels are TBD. FI-095 (J. Mueller, 3Com) requests that the following new issue be added to the G.hs-bis issues list: Is a procedure required to avoid the simultaneous initiation of multiple DSL sessions in adjacent pairs via crosstalk? G.hs is sufficiently robust that, without additional effort, it is possible to establish a G.hs session across two adjacent pairs via crosstalk. Also, although less likely, it is possible that the DSL negotiated with G.hs may establish a connection via crosstalk. While authentication procedures should avoid false billing and misdirection of private data, one DSL modem initiating a connection may cause other DSL modems to also initiate connections, which creates additional crosstalk during training. This may reduce performance, strain CO resources and irritate users. FI-104 (H. Lacey, J.Sticsia, and R. Chen, Virata) proposes the addition of code points to G.994.1 to show the framing mode capability in G.992.1. FI-127(B. Adams, Rapporteur Q4/16) is a liaison statement from Q4/16 on V.8/V.8bis codepoints. It notes their intent to seek SG16 approval for changes to V.8 and V.8bis at the SG16 meeting in Geneva in February, 2000. It suggests that it may be more appropriate for SG15 to have an entire category octet assigned for its own use, similar to the category octet that is assigned to SG8 for facsimile operations. However, it notes, implementations in the field may not handle the addition of another unknown octet received during a V.8 or V.8bis exchange. It also notes that the V.8 or V.8bis exchange takes place only at the beginning of a connection and that there is currently no defined way for a V.series modem to return to a V.8 or V.8bis exchange during a connection. FI-139 (L. Brown, Motorola, G.hs editor) is the G.hs ad hoc report on Issue 7.1. The ad hoc committee met to discuss how G.hs-bis should support the power backoff/line probing procedure for G.shdsl. It was agreed that a new message type and new transactions should be defined to support bi- directional parameter negotiation. This contribution contains the specifics agreed. G.PLOAM-BIS FI-U19 (S. Abbas, editor G.ploam-bis) is the updated G.ploam-bis Issues List. There is no plan to issue a new G.ploam in Geneva. However, there is some interest in Determining an Appendix (see FI- 024, below). FI-024 (G. Young, ADSL Forum Technical Committee Chair) is a liaison from the ADSL Forum on alternative OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) communications channel across the U-interface, in response to NT-129r2 (CSR Vol. 10.11). Attached to it is an updated copy of ADSL Forum WT-040, Proposal for an Alternative OAM Communications Channel Across the U-Interface (FI-025). Changes include optional enhancements to improve the speed of virtual register reads. ADSL Forum plans to achieve an interim solution to exchange a limited set of management information between the ATU-R and ATU-C. They are aware that not all existing transceivers may be able to implement this proposal, and that there may be existing usage of the proposed registers which may conflict with the proposed protocol. Their long term objective is to see these functions included in future versions of G.992.1, G.992.2, G.994.1, and G.997.1. These is some interest in publishing an Appendix for G.ploam based on FI-025.

FI-089 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) points out that in G.997.1, the definitions of minimum, target, and maximum noise margin are related to the transmitter, while they should be related to the receiver. It proposes textual changes to sections 7.3.3.1 - .6 to correct this error. This was agreed, but the change is not deemed significant enough to warrent a new issue of G.ploam. FI-137 (D. Stuart, 3Com, Q4/15 Rapporteur) is a letter to the ADSL Forum on alternative OAM communications channel across the U-interface. Q4/15 has not found any technical problems with the proposed alternative OAM communications channel. They identify the following recommendations for accommodation in future versions: ¥ The ATU-C shall support communication of the Upstream SNR margin, the Upstream Attenuation and the transmitter power control to the ATU-R ¥ The G.992.x Recommendation set shall specify a quiet line PSD measurement and a means to communicate measurement results to the other ATU They are studying whether the G.992.x Recommendation set should specify a line balance measurement and a means to communicate measurement results to the other ATU. They welcome contributions from the DSL Forum in identifying additional DSL OAM and diagnostics requirements, on separating OAM and diagnostics information into the areas of in-service and out-of-service link management, and on mechanisms to communicate related information between the ATU-C and ATU- R. G.TEST-BIS FI-R13 (M. Tzannes, Aware, editor G.test-bis) contains the current draft of G.test-bis, with changes from the previous version. The main change is the addition of the RF ingress test procedures and models. FI-U13 (M. Tzannes) is the updated G.test-bis Issues List. It was agreed to include in G.test- bis the common and differential RFI ingress testing described in NT-036r1. FI-048 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel, representing a ANSI T1E1.4 consensus) addresses the crosstalk test method, as described in G.996.1 section 5.1.2.2. Margin measurements are specified to be made by changing the power level of the injected crosstalk. It proposes that if reference crosstalk is summed with background noise to obtain the simulated crosstalk noise, the power level of both the reference crosstalk and the background noise must be changed. G.REF-BIS FI-U14 (S. Abbas, editor G.ref-bis) is the updated G.ref-bis Issues List. FI-067 (M. Ueda, Sumitomo Electric, Oki Electric, NTT, Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Toshiba Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric) proposes text to be added into the current Recommendation G.995.1 (G.ref) for the purpose of including the description of G.992.1 Annex H.

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW ALSO PUBLISHES:

Communications Standards Summary (ISSN 1075-5721), a quarterly publication reporting on all active projects 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 technical journals, please contact Elaine Baskin, tel +1 650 856-9018, fax +1 650 856- 6591, e-mail: [email protected]

Communications Standards Review regularly covers the following committee meetings:

TIA TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment TR-30 Data Transmission Systems & Equipment TR-41 User Premises Telephone Equipment Requirements TR-42 User Premises Telecommunications Infrastructure ITU-T SG8 Telematic Terminals SG15 WP1 Network Access SG15 WP2 Network Signal Processing SG16 Multimedia ETSI ATA Analog Terminal Access DTA Digital Terminal Access TIPHON Voice over Internet TM6 Transmission & Multiplexing DSL Forum xDSL, Access Technologies

THE CSR LIBRARY Subscribers may order copies of documents shown in boldface type from Communications Standards Review, 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 to order.

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

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

REPORT OF ITU-T STUDY GROUP 8, TERMINAL EQUIPMENT FOR TELEMATIC SERVICES, FEBRUARY 2 - 10, 2000, GENEVA RECOMMENDATIONS DECIDED BY SG8

Q Rec. Description Documents 1/8 T.4 Amendment 1 T.4 Annex H Amendments Needed to Support T.44 COM8-105 Annex B and JBIG2. 1/8 T.30 Amendment 1, Extended Negotiations Protocol for Group 3 Facsimile COM8-106add; plus Annex L revisions per TD-290rev1 1/8 T.35 Amendment 1 Procedure for the Allocation of ITU-T Defined Codes for COM8-93, D.210 (Item 1), Non- Standard Facilities TD-275 5/8 T.43 Amendment 1 Accomodation of New and Future Resolutions COM8-104 5/8 T.44 Annex B MRC Mode 4 - Shared Resources And Colour Tags TD-247 5/8 T.44 Amendment 1 Mixed Raster Content (MRC) TD-288R1 4/8 T.38 Annex D SIP/SDP Call Establishment Procedures TD-262rev2 5/8 T.45 Run Length Colour Encoding COM8-102 6/8 T.88 JBIG-2 COM8-96, D.205, TD-282 1/8 T.503 Amendment 5 Higher Resolution of Colour/Gray-Scale G4 Facsimile COM8-98 The draft T.38 Annex E as contained in TD-265rev1 was proposed for Decision. However, the United States elected to take the 4 week rule. The reason was to determine if the H.248 Recommendation would be approved at SG16 the following week. (Editor’s note: H.248 was not approved by SG16; it was re-Determined with a goal of Approval at an interim SG16 meeting in June, 2000. The US voted a conditional “no,” but suggested that T.38 Annex E could be adopted without further formality, once the June 15 meeting of SG 16 accepts H.248, ie, no further meeting of SG 8 would be required. ) SG8 APPROVALS

Q Rec. Description Documents 2/8 T.24 Amendment 1 Inclusion of Test Images 1-8 at 1200 dpi COM8-92, TD-300 1/8 T.30 Appendix VI Examples for Internet Routing/Polling D.217 4/8 T.38 Appendix II Implementation Guide for T.38 (Real Time Fax Over the TD-299 Internet) Annex B, Call Establishment Procedures 1/8 T.66 Appendix 1 Procedure for the Assignment of Additional T.66 (V.8 and D.211 V.8bis Fields Used by SG8) Parameters 3/8 T.417 Amendment 2 Higher Resolution Support in G4 Facsimile COM8-110 RECOMMENDATIONS DETERMINED BY SG8

Q Rec. Description Documents 1/8 T.4 Amendment 2 K Factor Parameters and References COM-101, D.213, TD-302 (summary) 1/8 T.30 Amendment 2 K Factor Parameters and References COM8-100, COM8-106Add., COM8- 112, TD-276, TD-303 (summary) 4/8 T.38 Annex D Transmission of DTMF Tones over RTP TD-289 Amendment 1 Transport 4/8 T.38 Annex E Enhancement of Fax Capabilities of Rec. H.248 TD-267 Amendment 1 6/8 T.87 JPEG Lossless Extensions D.207 6/8 T.800 JPEG 2000 D.206 RECOMMENDATIONS DELETED BY SG8

Q Rec. Title Q1/8 T.60 Terminal equipment for use in the teletex service Q1/8 T.63 Provisions for verification of teletex terminal compliance Q1/8 T.64 Conformance testing procedures for the teletex Recommendations Q4/8 F.551 Service Recommendation for the telematic file transfer within telefax 3, telefax 4, teletex services and message handling services

LIAISON TO ISO/IEC Several delegates noted that there is a problem with initial phase of JPEG 2000, since it only includes the SRGB color space and does not support the ITU convention for the color space. It was agreed to send a liason to this effect. FUTURE WORK SG8 agreed that an interim Q4/8 meeting will be held in June 2000 in the United States, near Washington DC, with Nortel as the host. No other Questions requested interim meetings. This may have been the last SG8 meeting. The on-going substantive work of SG8 might make up three Questions, one for fax (including SG8 Q1, Q2, Q3), one for Fax over Alternative networks (basically SG8 Q4), and one for color fax (SG8 Q5) with the current SG8 Q6 work continuing in ISO JPEG with liaison input from the ITU. A logical organization would be to group the fax work with other media-related work over the PSTN and IP in SG16 or its successor. Any reorganization will, of course, be determined by the ITU-T management and committee chairs. QUESTION 1/8, FACSIMILE TERMINALS Question 1/8 addresses standards issues related to facsimile terminals. The Q1/8 Rapporteur is A. Pugh (Panasonic, UK). The meeting report is TD-294r1. The Action Plan is TD-296r1. In ITU Circular 225, Recommendation T.563 is listed for approval; however, it was agreed at the Maidenhead meeting (Sept. 1999), and reconfirmed at this meeting, that changes to this Recommendation are not required as the introduction of higher resolutions is covered by the amendment to T.503. The related question for the next study period is contained in TD-295rev1; US reservations about attempting to address facsimile QoS (Quality of Service) within this question were noted. The Q1/8 rapporteur noted that a new draft modem recommendation for V.92 is being reviewed in Study Group 16. TD-322 is a liaison to SG16 Question 23 stating the interest of the fax experts in having input on requirements for this work.. TD-237 (R. Blane, WP4/2 Chair) is a liaison from Q12/2 to SG3 and SG13, a copy to SG8 and SG11, in response to comments raised by SG3 and SG13 concerning advice of charge and indication of charged party in split charge scenarios for B-ISDN and ATM. This was discussed briefly; it was concluded that no action is required by SG8 at this time. TD-249 (B. Adams, Q4/16 Rapporteur) is a liaison to SG8 on V.mmo (modem managed objects). Q4/16 is currently working on draft Recommendation V.mmo - Managed Objects for Modem Diagnostics, which intends to standardize the number of types of information, such as connect speed, modulation method and error events, which are reported. This is to aid in the resolution of problems for the user as well as for statistical analysis for ISPs.

TD-252 (H. V. Singh, India) contains comments from India regarding Recommendation T.30. This contribution arrived too late to be considered as a delayed contribution. It was agreed that this contribution should be resubmitted to the next meeting of Q1/8. RECOMMENDATION T.4 AMENDMENT 1 The text in COM8-105 contains the agreed text for Amendment 1 to T.4 (1999); the base text is Recommendation T.4 as Decided by SG8 in April, 1999. This was approved (Decided) by SG8. Amendment 1 to Rec. T.4 (1999) includes changes to: ¥ Annex E/T.4 to include specification of the restriction on the use of the horizontal image size parameter of a JPEG data stream (JPEG color requires square image resolutions) and amendment of the definition of spatial resolution to cover all standardized resolutions ¥ Annex H/T.4 (mixed raster content) to cover mixed raster content black and white images

RECOMMENDATION T.30 AMENDMENT 1 COM8-106 (J. Rafferty, Human Communications) includes the Determined text for Amendment 1 to Recommendation T.30, Annex L (1999). It is based on the text automatically re-Determined at the SG8 meeting in April, 1999, when it was not approved for Decision. This Annex defines a framework for an extension to the existing DIS/DCS negotiations exchange, and defines an extended negotiations protocol (ENP) for Group 3 facsimile. Its purpose is to provide a flexible way to support facsimile applications which may benefit from a second stage of negotiations. It also contains the T.30 Annex J amendments for T.44 Annex B, plus Table 2/T.30 amendments for higher color resolutions, B&W MRC profile, JBIG2 profiles and Memory Level.

COM8-106Add. is the text for Amendment 1 to Recommendation T.30, which includes: 1) Changes for: a) Inclusion of a cellular network connection indication b) Introduction of 600 pels/25.4 mm x 600 lines/25.4 mm and 1200 pels/25.4 mm x 1200 pels/25.4 mm resolutions for gray scale and color c) Double sided printing capability d) Black and white mixed raster content capability e) Recommendation T.45 run length color encoding f) Application profile indications for Recommendation T.88 g) Removal of duplication between Annex G (security using HKM and HFX) and Annex H (security using RSA) 2) Addition of a new Annex K on procedure for V.21 duplex negotiations and call control in G3 facsimile 3) Addition of a new Annex L (see COM8-106) on Extended Negotiations Protocol For Group 3 Facsimile COM8-81 contains the previously translated text; revisions to the text were all contained in TD-167 as agreed in March, 1999. This text is shown in its entirety, with markups for all items of TD-167 to assist the translators. SG8 Decided T.30 Amendment 1 as COM8-106add, plus revisions per TD-290r1. ANSam with Phase Reversals COM8-95, V.34 Half-Duplex V.8 ANSam Phase Reversal Requirement and T.30 (USA), proposes that the mandatory requirement for the transmission of phase reversals in T.30 ¤6.1.1 be replaced by a warning until the experts shall have determined an appropriate response to the nature of this issue. D.152 (CSR Vol. 10.5) indicated that there may be a problem with the V.8 ANSam use of the no phase reversal option, with some existing network echo cancelers. As a result of these observations, a liaison to SG16 requested amendment of V.34 to make phase reversals mandatory. It was also agreed to modify T.30 to include a mandatory requirement to use phase reversals in V.8 ANSam. The US feels that neither these liaisons nor the proposed statement for T.30 address the issue appropriately. This opinion is further substantiated by the SG15 and SG16 responses to these liaisons. (See CSR Vol. 11.1 TR-30.1 report for previous discussion of this issue.) TD-293 (Y. Tao, Lucent) is a liaison statement from Q7/15 to Q1/8, Q4/16, and Q23/16 on the problems identified with V.34 fax transmission through network echo cancelers, identified in D.152. It proposes that Recommendation G.168 (2000) be amended to include an optional tone disabler capability that turns off the NLP (non-linear processor) on detection of a 2100 Hz tone, thus disabling the NLP for any fax or voiceband data call that is preceded by a 2100 Hz answer tone without phase reversals and with or without amplitude modulation (ANSam). It notes that some echo cancelers already include such a feature in their devices. There was considerable discussion regarding whether any of the proposed texts should be adopted. Further, it was noted that the initial results from tests carried out in the UK indicate the problem could be associated with the operation of the non-linear processor. In view of the fact that Q7/15 is proposing

March-A 2000 Vol. 11.2 Copyright © CSR 2000 27 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW to carry further tests in the interim to their next meeting in April, 2000, it was agreed not to forward any of the proposed texts for approval by SG8. Instead, the text of Sec. 5 of COM8-106add. will remain Determined. It was further agreed that an Amendment to T.30 will be approved, if necessary, after receiving the response from SG15. T.30 ANNEX K COM8-94 (USA) states the US position on T.30 Annex K (defines the use of V.21 duplex operation for signaling). The US position is that the agreement reached by Q1/8 at the November, 1998 interim SG8 meeting which noted that the work would not stimulate the sales of new terminals, has merit and validity, and that Annex K of T.30 as defined in COM8-R9 should not be supported for Decision. Following a brief discussion, Q1/8 reconfirmed the Ashbourne agreement (November, 1998, CSR Vol. 10.1) to not forward this Annex to SG8 for approval. It was further agreed to no longer consider this Annex for approval; it was withdrawn. EXTENDED NEGOTIATIONS, T.30 ANNEX L T.30 Annex L for extended negotiations was Determined at the SG8 meeting in April 1999. Additional revisions were proposed at this meeting in order to address issues related to DCME and other points related to the elimination of the encapsulation of DIS. TD-240 (UK) provides comments on TSB circular 225 concerning draft Recommendation T.30 Annex L, Extended Negotiations Protocol (ENP). In discussion, the question arose as to whether real DCME had been used or only simulated in the tests. TD-261 (Y. Naito, Mitsubishi) is an analysis from Q6/15 in response to the Q1/8 liaison on DCME support for facsimile terminals capable of extended negotiations. This analysis of DCME products indicates a potential for call disconnection should the new T.30 ENP be applied to the G.763/G.766 DCMEs. Modification of the relevant firmware of DCME already in the field is impractical. Modification of the G.766 algorithm, if agreed, should be executed with care to maintain the interoperability between the equipment, and to adopt many of the non-standard facsimile facilities already in the field. The following approaches are suggested: ¥ T.30 Annex L facsimile should use V.8 sequence ¥ T.30 Annex L facsimile should ensure the re-transmission of DEC and Training signal after DCS timer (15 sec) of DCME expires (utilization of DNK signal reception is one possibility) ¥ T.30 Annex L should not be standardized Included in this liaison are: ¥ Annex A, DCME Behavior Analysis on Receiving T.30 ENP Signal, which explains the behavior of three Mitsubishi DCMEs already in the field when the new T.30 ENP signal is applied ¥ Annex B, Influence of the ENP [T.30 Annex L] on DCME [G.766] (NEC), which describes how current DCME will be affected by ENP implementation on G3 facsimile This liaison was discussed in detail, particularly the point indicating that using the DEC signal instead of DCS is what apparently causes the DCME to malfunction. It was noted that there appear to be no problems with use of the V.34 modulation system, and it was suggested that changes might be made to the extended negotiations procedure to overcome the DCME problem. In spite of considerable discussion, no solution satisfying all the requirements was found; concern was expressed as to whether the text of Annex L should be forwarded to SG8 for approval. An ad hoc group reviewed Annex L and suggested revisions to the text. TD-316 contains those revisions. The result is that the UK is still opposed to adoption; they want to have consensus with DCME people before approval. They are concerned about lack of support for all modulations for ENP in the new proposal, since the proposed solution to addressing the DCME issues as contained in TD- 316 was to mark support of ENP and non-V.34 modulations for further study. It was agreed that the UK comments would be recorded in the meeting report.

CELLULAR NETWORK INDICATION D.219 (Y. Onaka, KDD) comments on GSTN access indication in DIS/DTC/DCS. The SG3 meeting in Geneva, June 1998, proposed cellular network indication, and the Q1/8 interim meeting in Ashbourne, November, 1998, questioned the purpose of the GSTN access bit in the DIS/DTC/DCS signal; the behavior of GSTN is still unclear. This contribution requests clarification of the action of the network when the cellular bit is received, and clarification of the condition of setting the cellular bit. D.220 (A. Pugh, UK) proposes cellular network indication in T.30. Over the past few SG8 meetings, Germany has repeatedly proposed that some form of indication be provided to indicate that a Group 3 facsimile terminal is connected to a mobile network, specifically the GSM network. At the June, 1998 meeting, it was agreed that one bit will be used in DIS to indicate that the terminal is connected to a mobile network. It appears that the problem to be solved here is a problem associated with networks, not with terminals; therefore, clarification of how this bit will be used is recommended. In discussion, concern was expressed about a possible reduction in service quality resulting from the introduction of this bit; an ad hoc group was convened to discuss and resolve the points raised. TD- 318 is the report of the Ad Hoc as approved by Q1/8. The bit is needed in the non-transparent mode of operation (defined by ETSI) of the GSM network and also in the future UMTS which is planned to support a non-transparent facsimile mode of operation. As a result, the solution described in COM8- 106add (see bit 4 in Table 2/T.30 and note B) was agreed and Determined. It was agreed that reference should be made to “third generation mobile networks” rather than the more general reference, “cellular networks.” This text was Determined. T.30 APPENDIX VI D.217 (N. Mori, NEC; Japanese Manufacturers) proposes modifications to new T.30 Appendix VI - Examples for Internet Routing/Polling (see CSR Vol. 10.5) to clarify ambiguities contained in the draft attachment to the April, 1999 SG8 meeting report, Appendix I to Annex 1 of COM8-R11. These proposed editorial amendments (description and examples) were agreed; they were approved by SG8. RECOMMENDATION T.35 COM8-93 (H. Silbiger, Q4/8 Rapporteur) is the final text of Recommendation T.35 (Procedure for the allocation of ITU-T defined codes for non-standard facilities), incorporating Amendment 1, extension of country codes to two octets. The binary coded control procedures provide for the inclusion of non- standard facilities in addition to the standard facilities given in the appropriate T series Recommendations, and require a unique code to be allocated to each provider who includes such non- standard facilities. Other ITU-T Recommendations may also use this method to identify the use of non-standard facilities in their procedures. This Recommendation defines the procedure for the allocation of ITU-T defined code for non-standard facilities. Included is Annex A to Rec. T.35, the list of country or area codes for non-standard facilities in telematic services. D.210 (K. Eiden, Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post; Germany) contains two editorial corrections to draft Revised Recommendation T.35. At the recent SG2 meeting, Germany introduced a contribution addressing possible incompatibilities between draft Revised Recommendation T.35 and Recommendations of the H-series; this contribution was also discussed in SG16. It was concluded that some protocols (T.124, H.225, H.245, H.283, possibly others) only support T.35 codes with a fixed length of four octets. The two corrections proposed were agreed for inclusion in section 3.3. An ad hoc group produced the final wording (TD-275). It was agreed to include the text of the proposed Note in both sections 3.2 and 3.3. It was noted that the first correction suggested had been included in the original text submitted to the TSB. SG8 Decided T.35 Amendment 1 as contained in COM8-93, D.210 (Item 1), and TD-275.

RECOMMENDATION T.66 D.211 (H. Silbiger. Lucent; USA), proposes text to be added to Rec. T.66 as Appendix I - Procedure for the Assignment of Additional T.66 Parameters. Rec. T.66 contains the V.8 and V.8bis category and information fields reserved for definition and use by SG8. This procedure will allow the addition of new fields as they are required, thus avoiding the need to revise the entire Recommendation when additions or changes are required in the category and information fields. The proposed Appendix is included. This was agreed.

D.212 (H. Silbiger. Lucent; USA) requests SG8 assign a V.8 call function code point range and a V.8bis standard information field code point range for use by the Telecommunications Industry Association (USA) Committee TR-29 - Facsimile Systems and Equipment Engineering. This assignment of code points is contingent upon SG8 approval of the proposed appendix to Rec. T.66. This was also agreed. In discussion, it was pointed out that the allocation is required for experimental purposes and may become available for re-allocation in the future. France expressed a concern that allocating a national standards body code is contrary to the general philosophy of international standardization. In response, it was pointed out that there have been instances of national standards being brought to the ITU-T and subsequently adopted. The following wording was then agreed for inclusion in the relevant sections of T.66: “Reserved for experimental use by Telecommunications Industry Association (USA) Committee TR-29 - Facsimile Systems & Engineering.” It was also noted that this request for the allocation of a code for a national standardization body was the first to be received, and that similar bodies in other countries which also require a code should apply for the allocation of their code as and when required. SG8 approved the Appendix to T.66 as contained in D.211. RECOMMENDATION T.503, G4 DOCUMENT APPLICATION PROFILE COM8-98, Amendment 5 to T.503 (Editor T.503), introduces color and gray-scale higher resolutions of 100, 200, 300, 400, 600 and 1200 pels/25.4 mm to G4 facsimile. Color and gray-scale higher resolutions will require different implementation or handling than black and white higher resolutions on the scanning/printing/memory facility. Therefore, it is beneficial that facsimile machines can declare or negotiate color and gray-scale higher resolutions capabilities independent of black and white resolutions. Such proposed resolutions were introduced in D.196, and Determined at the SG8 meeting in March-April, 1999. COM8-91 contains editorial corrections to D.196; additional corrections to COM8-91 are contained in MHD-040; these were agreed at the SG8 plenary in Maidenhead, September, 1999. The proposed changes to T.503 contained in COM8-98 were agreed. SG8 Decided Amendment 5 to T.503 as contained in COM8-98. RECOMMENDATION T.4 AMENDMENT 2 COM8-101 (D. Bodson, USA) proposes revisions to Rec. T.4 concerning K Factor parameters and references for optional higher resolutions of 300, 400, 600, 800, and 1200 lines/25.4 mm. In addition, the optional higher resolutions need to be incorporated into all appropriate parts of the recommendation. T.4 was last published July, 1996. T.4 Amendment 1 was completed in July, 1997. T.4 Amendment 2 was completed in October, 1997. A T.4 corrigendum was completed in June, 1998. COM8-101 also notes that several of the referenced T-Series Recommendations appear to be either out- of-date or no longer in force. It suggests re-publication of T.4 with the corrections identified. This proposal was agreed, to be submitted to SG8 for Determination. D.213 (D. Bodson, USA) proposes revisions to Rec. T.4 relating to K factor, and calls for deletion of Notes 1 and 2 from Section 4.2.1.1. This was agreed, as was the proposed Determination of this change. TD-302 (A. Pugh, Q1/8 Rapporteur) is the proposed summary for Amendment 2 to Rec. T.4 (1999).

SG8 Determined T.4 Amendment 2, as contained in COM8-101, D.213, and TD-302 (summary). RECOMMENDATION T.30 AMENDMENT 2 COM8-100 (D. Bodson, USA) proposes inclusion of K Factor parameters for optional higher resolutions of 300, 400, 600, 800, and 1200 lines/25.4 mm in Rec. T.30, specifically, addition of a bit in the DIS field in Table 2/T.30 to indicate the use of the revised K factors. This was agreed, as was the proposed Determination. COM8-112 (Canon, Matsushita, NEC, OKI, Ricoh, Toshiba) proposes the inclusion of a DIS flow control bit and flow control capability for use with T.38 communications. This was agreed, together with the proposed Determination of the text, subject to some editorial changes. This was previously proposed in MDH-042 (CSR Vol. 10.10). This capability is in response to increased failure rates noted for fax over packet networks. These editorial changes relate to the name of the new timer and correction of some errors in the signal sequence examples. It was also agreed that the proposed change needed some additional changes in Annexes G and H to refer to the new paragraphs in the main body of T.30. The Editor agreed to make these changes. D.215 (Japanese Manufacturers) proposes a new DIS/DCS bit for internet-aware fax devices. Since June, 1998, T.38 has undergone improvements, and examination of its packaging has begun. However, as its focus has largely been on the gateway, consideration of internet-aware fax devices not connected via gateways is required. This contribution highlights a problem specific to internet-aware fax devices - there is no transfer speed value to be set in the DIS and DCS signals - and proposes a solution through an expansion of T.30 signals used in T.38. In discussion, no agreement was reached. An ad hoc group convened twice to discuss the proposal; TD-276rev1 is their report. The notes agreed are: ¥ Note Y (DIS/DTC): This bit should be set to “1” if the fax device is an Internet-Aware Fax Device as defined in T.38 and if it is not affected by the data signal rate indicated by the DIS and DTC signals when communicating with another Internet-Aware Fax Device operating in T.38 mode. This bit shall not be used in the GSTN mode. ¥ NoteY+1 (DCS): This bit should be set to “1” if the fax device elects to operate in an Internet-Aware Fax mode as defined in T.38 in response to a device which has set the related DIS bit to “1.” ¥ NoteY+2(DCS): When this bit is set to “1,” the data signal rate of the modem (bits 11-14) should be set to “0.” The proposed amendments (adding a bit and these notes) to Table 2/T.30 were agreed. SG8 Determined T.30 Amendment 2 as contained in COM8-100, COM8-106add, COM8-112, TD-276, TD-303 (summary). RECOMMENDATION T.PRIVATEUSE COM8-107 (Editor) provides the proposed draft Recommendation T.PrivateUse. At the Maidenhead meeting of Question 1/8 (September, 1999), the current text for draft Recommendation T.PrivateUse was reviewed. That base text was contained within Appendix 1 to Annex 1 of the meeting report, COM8-R11-E. Upon review of the base text at Maidenhead, some editorial changes had been agreed. It was also agreed that the text as amended should be submitted as a white contribution proposed for Determination at the February 2000 SG8 meeting. This proposed draft Recommendation defines the components and coding of the Private Use function that is identified within Annex X/T.30 (Extended Negotiations). The combination of Extended Negotiations and standardized construction of private use information fields supports all of the functionality of current Non Standard Facilities (NSF) implementations and offers additional flexibility and utility. The standardized form enables distinctions to be made between different types of private use operations. This approach enables improved private use functionality on a wide variety of networks, including the Internet.

COM8-111 (Canon, Matsushita, NEC, OKI, Ricoh, Toshiba) raises four new objections to T.PrivateUse. France expressed support for the points raised by Japan. COM8-111 also notes a possible contradiction with the overall philosophy of standardizing non-standard facilities as proposed in the draft. In view of the comments made, it was decided not to submit T.PrivateUse to SG8 for Determination. PROPOSED DELETION OF RECOMMENDATIONS T.60, T.63, AND T.64 D.228 (H. K. Hertlein, Germany) states Germany’s withdrawal of their opposition to the deletion of T- series recommendations agreed at the SG8 March-April, 1999 meeting. It notes that a survey conducted in Germany concluded that the teletex technology may still be used in a few locations, but that replacement and maintenance of terminals is no longer foreseen. In discussion, it was agreed to again recommend the deletion of T.60, T.63 and T.64 to SG8. TD-313 (A. Pugh, UK) is a liaison statement to SG7 and ETSI on this matter. TD-297 (A. Pugh, UK) is the proposed summary for the deletion of recommendations T.60, T.63 and T.64. SG8 approved the deletion of all three recommendations. REVISION OF Q1/8 TD-253 (A. Pugh, Q1/8 Rapporteur) presents text on which study questions should be revised for the next study period. This was discussed in detail. It was agreed that the most efficient way of dealing with facsimile in the next study period, as far as operation over the GSTN and ISDN is concerned, is for all the work to be covered in one Study Group. Further, accounting for the current state of maturity of facsimile, it was agreed to incorporate the existing work of Q2/8 and Q3/8, and the Q5/2 work on the quality of service aspects, into the revised Q1/8. The USA expressed a reservation about the proposal to include the quality of service work from SG2, but did not object to the text in view of the fact that the final decision will be made by TSAG. TD-295r1 (A. Pugh, Q1/8 Rapporteur) is revised text for Q1/8 in the Next Study Period. QUESTION 2/8, FACSIMILE TEST CHARTS AND TEST IMAGES The Q2/8 Rapporteur is D. Bodson (USA). TD-300 is the meeting report. TD-301 is the action plan. The main task was to work on the ITU-T Recommendation T.24 Amendment 1 - Inclusion of test images 1-8 at 1200 dpi. COM8-92 (D. Bodson, T.24 Amendment 1 Editor) is the proposed final draft of ITU-T Recommendation T.24 Amendment 1; it was approved at this meeting. The purpose of this Amendment is to include CCITT Test Images 1-8 at 1200 dpi, which are used for, among other things, testing transmission quality and evaluating compression algorithms. Many of the parameters, such as number of pixels (both width and height), dimensions in inches (both width and height), and size of the image in Mbytes, were deliberately left blank, as this data is derived from the scanned images. Exact data is not yet available, as none of these images has yet been scanned. D.214 (N. Etroukhin, Russian Telecommunication Administration) proposes using estimated values for these fields, and then replacing them with the exact data when available. COM8-92, as amended by D.214, was agreed; it was further agreed to add a note indicating that some of the data in Table 1 is estimated. Any further work for this question will be incorporated in the successor to the facsimile question (currently Question 1). QUESTION 3/8, COOPERATIVE DOCUMENT HANDLING The Q3/8 Rapporteur is H.D. Schulz (DTAG). The meeting report is TD-286. The agenda is TD-257. COM8-110 is the Draft Amendment 2 to T.417 (ODA, raster graphics content architecture) for higher resolution support in G4 facsimile. This was approved by SG8 Some ASN.1 errors have been identified in the new version of T.434 (Binary file transfer), which is to be published. The editor of T.434 has been working through the ASN.1 part of this document with the

32 Vol. 11.2 Copyright © CSR 2000 March-A 2000 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW editor of ASN.1 (B. Scott). As a result, a list of corrections is now available. The editor will inform the TSB about the detailed corrections so that the publication of T.434 will be fully compliant with the latest version of ASN.1. No further work will be carried out under Q3/8; Q3/8 work will be integrated into Q1/8. The technical areas that remain for integration in Q1/8 are the maintenance of Recommendations, and, potentially, a new version of the T.434 Implementers Guide. QUESTION 4/8, DOCUMENT COMMUNICATION SERVICES The Q4/8 Rapporteur is H. Silbiger (Lucent Technologies, USA). The action plan is TD-315. The meeting report is TD-310r1. The agenda is TD-255. This Question has taken over responsibility for various F-series documents on fax and document communications service requirements which had been addressed within SG1 during the previous study period. TD-280r1 (H. Silbiger, Q4/8 Rapporteur) contains proposed text for a Question for the next study period; it takes into account the September, 1999 Maidenhead discussions. The aim of this Question is to allow the full range of facsimile terminal capabilities to be supported over packet networks. The primary network to be studied will be networks using the Internet Protocol, but the Question will also cover facsimile over other packet networks. It proposes study of extensions to Rec. T.37 and Rec. T.38. Minor suggestions were made, notably: to add a line item to study gateways for areas such as PSTN fax, Group 4, and non-image transmission capabilities. It was also agreed that a close association with questions dealing with V-series (modems) and H.200 and H.300 (Internet communication) series was essential.. TD-280rev2 was agreed. IETF FAX STATUS TD-279rev1 (H. Silbiger, Lucent, Q4/8 Rapporteur) reports the status of work from the IETF Fax working group. The working group is in the process of completing the activities specified in the original charter. In line with this, there is a collection of documents which has gone through working group Last Call. These documents are drafts which are proposed for submission to the IESG in the near future at the Draft Standard level. The resulting RFCs would ultimately replace the current RFCs 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304 and 2305 (together Simple Mode for Internet Fax). The RFCs 2301, 2303, 2304 and 2305 are referenced in T.37 (store and forward fax). The changes proposed from the existing RFCs are not considered to be technical in nature. There are some small refinements in the documents based on feedback from implementers, primarily to clarify the meaning of some portions of the text. At this time, there are still some additional interworking tests that need to be conducted for RFC 2303-2304 related to the support of GSTN addresses in email addresses. In addition, there are some references contained within RFC 2305 which are at the proposed standard level. In order to progress RFC 2305 to the draft standard level, all of its normative references also need to be at the draft level. The working group has submitted two additional documents to the Internet Engineering Steering Group for Last Call.: ¥ Draft document for approval as a Proposed Standard RFC which is intended to replace RFC 2531 - draft-ietf-fax-feature-schema-v2-01.txt - Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2) ¥ New document for approval as an informational RFC - draft-ietf-fax-T30-mapping-03.txt - Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping There has been a new RFC 2738 (A syntax for describing media feature sets) approved which updates RFC 2533 (same title). RFC 2533 is one of the embedded references within RFCs 2530 (Media features using extensions to DSN and MDN), 2531 (Content feature schema for Internet fax), and 2532 (Extended fax using Internet mail), which are referenced within T.37 amendment 1. The new RFC provides correction for a single small syntax error and fixes an editorial point.

A new draft charter is being considered. Previously the IETF developed specifications for simple and extended Internet mail-based facsimile service profiles, tailored to interwork with the world of T.30 facsimile. This extension effort will produce a final increment of specification for supporting a “full” equivalence of T.30 service over Internet mail. Technical work for this effort includes timely delivery, document privacy, and integrated specification of Full-mode Facsimile Profile of Internet Mail (FFPIM). Differential routing between classic Internet mail and timely deliveries will be considered, as will universal messaging issues. The proposal is to charter this group in March 2000 and complete all work in April 2001. T.38 CALL CONTROL COM8-109 has the Determined text for T.38 Annexes D and E. An ad hoc group chaired by G. Parsons was formed to finalize the texts for Decision and handle other T.38 issues (see report, below). Annex D to Recommendation T.38 describes system level requirements and procedures for internet- aware facsimile implementations and internet aware facsimile gateways conforming to Rec. T.38 to establish calls with other Rec. T.38 implementations using the procedures defined in RFC 2543 (SIP) and RFC 2327 (SDP). Annex E to Recommendation T.38 describes system level requirements and procedures for internet-aware facsimile implementations and internet aware facsimile gateways conforming to Rec. T.38 to establish calls with other Rec. T.38 implementations using the procedures defined by Rec. H.248. D.225 (G. Parson, Canada) proposes corrections to Recommendation T.38 Annex E. Canada supports the approval of Rec. T.38 Annex E for Decision as part of Rec. T.38 Amendment 2 (COM8- 109), but proposes several changes to achieve alignment with both the Determined text of Rec. H.248 and editor’s revisions. D.226 (G. Parson, Canada) proposes corrections to Rec. T.38 Annex D. Canada also supports the approval of Annex D for Decision as part of Rec. T.38 Amendment 2, but proposes several minor changes to align it with the recently published T.38 Annex B. Canada considers that the changes proposed in both these contributions do not alter the technical content of the respective specifications. TD-298 (W. Staudinger as SG8 Chair) is a communication from ISOC/IETF on IETF work on fax in connection with Megaco/H.248. The design team formed to create packages for Megaco/H.248 control over fax, data, and text telephony has created two internet drafts on this: ¥ Fax, Modem, Text Telephone Determination using Megaco/H.248 (R. Spitzer, Z. Bilalis, G. Hellström, J. Rafferty, G. Parsons) aims to become an Appendix to Megaco and to be the base for the “application guide.” ¥ Megaco Packages Not Included In Megaco/H.248 White (M. Kallas, Z. Bilalis et al), still in progress, gathers together all packages not yet included in Annex E of Megaco/H.248 White Draft These may be seen at http://www.ietf.org/draft-ietf-megaco-fmtdeterm-00.txt, and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-otherpkgs-00.txt. This material was also submitted to SG16 for inclusion as an Annex of H.248 (see joint 4/8 and 13/16 meeting report, below). T.38 USING V.34 ACCESS COM8-R12contains the text produced in Maidenhead (See CSR Vol. 10.10 MHD-054r1) for an Amendment to Recommendation T.38 to Support the Use of V.34 Modulation. D.227 (G. Parson, Canada) outlines the procedure for handling the V.8 handshake under a Rec. T.38 (real-time fax over the Internet) environment. Rec. T.38 currently does not define the procedure for handling the V.8 modulation. Rec. V.8 defines the starting sessions of data transmission that is required for V.34 and higher modulations. Rec. V.8 has a turnaround time limit that may be exceeded when packets are transported over the Internet. Since Internet latency is of a random nature, definition of a clear procedure is needed for Rec. V.8 operation to work robustly over the Internet. An ad hoc group chaired by M. Mehta (Nortel) was formed to further progress this work (see report below).

T.38 EXAMPLES

D.218 (Japanese Manufacturers) proposes modifications to Table 6 (parameters of data type) of T.38 Appendix II (Implementation guide) to bring it into conformity with T.38 Annex B (call establishment procedures); it was assigned to the V.34 Ad Hoc. At the interim-SG8 meeting in Maidenhead (September 1999), there was a liaison reply from SG16 about T.38 Annex B. T.38 Annex B was modified in accordance with the H-series recommendation to which it refers. T.38 Appendix II is an implementation guide for T.38 Annex B. D.218 proposes to modify Appendix II to reflect the changes made in Annex B. OTHER T.38 ISSUES D.216 (Japanese Manufacturers) proposes that a note be added to Recommendation T.38 for clarification concerning situations where internet-aware fax devices are used. Noting that the focus of T.38 has largely been on the gateway, it points out that consideration of internet-aware fax devices not connected via gateways is still required. An ad hoc group chaired by H. Endo, IAF ad hoc Chair, was formed for this issue. D.221 (Japanese Manufacturers) proposes to modify the Recommendation T.38 Corrigendum about the use of the TPKT header. It notes that a contradiction exists between the T.38 description of the header structure in TCP mode and the IETF RFC 1006 use of the TPKT header to set the size of the TPDU when using the OSI application on TCP/IP. This contradiction causes an interoperability issue in H.323 Annex D when packet fragmentation occurs in the packet network; this contribution proposes that the use of the TPKT header be specified in the T.38 Corrigendum to ensure interoperability. This was discussed at the joint meeting with Q13/16 and Q14/16 (see below). There was a request from H. Endo (OKI) to Determine text that recommends the use of TPKT in the event of T.38 use via the TCP/IP transport method. The rapporteur requested that if TPKT is used, then the version for T.38 would need to be incremented. The editor suggested that the amendment could be included in the T.38 additional amendment that is needed. The text will be put together by the editor and will include the revision of T.38 at version 2. Q4/8 accepted this conclusion; the resulting text will be produced for inclusion in the Determined amendment. D.222 (Japanese Manufacturers) proposes clarification of the opening procedure of TCP connection in TCP mode facsimile communications of Recommendation T.38. Because T.38 does not describe the opening procedures for TCP connections, multiple implementations in the facsimile communications of the TCP mode exist. To ensure interoperability in T.38 and H.323 Annex D, modifications are proposed to both T. 38 Appendix II and the H.323 Implementers Guide. This was later discussed in the V.34 ad hoc. D.223 (Canada) is a report in progress (based on 500+ test calls) on performance of public real time Internet facsimile with T.38. It identifies the following: ¥ T.38 is viable in the UDP mode with extensions in two areas ¥ There is still work to be done, but the quality of the T.38 link already exceeds that of the final GSTN portion to the legacy fax ¥ Duration of the single session will be increased by about 20% ¥ No T.30 spoofing which risks false delivery confirmation need be used ¥ The public Internet can used, though preferably not some of its worst routes ¥ Bit rates achieved for image data are similar to those achieved on GSTN up to 14.4 kbit/s; for this, an IP bandwidth of 25 kbit/s per active fax channel is required to support redundant transmission The report was not considered useful, as it did not present sufficient technical details. D.224 (Canada) proposes a correction to the ASN.1 syntax in Recommendation T.38 Annex A to prevent future interoperability problems as new capabilities (such as V.34) are added to the IFP protocol. This was agreed.

TD-224 (Rapporteur Q22/7; Contact: B. Scott, ASN.1 editor) is a liaison to ITU-T Study Groups 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 regarding the availability of ASN.1, 1997. A new edition of the ASN.1 Recommendations was approved in 1997 and has now been published. Also, a set of Amendments was approved at the June 1999 Study Group 7 meeting. Application specifications conforming to the 1994 ASN.1 Recommendations conform fully with the 1997 Recommendations, and require no change. However, application specifiers should reference the 1997 Recommendations (plus the Amendments if appropriate) in all new work. REPORTS FROM THE T.38 AD HOC GROUP TD-270 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is the report of the Ad Hoc on T.38 Annexes. The group reviewed draft Annex E in light of contributions on the need for revisions, and produced several related documents, including an updated Annex D and Annex E, a new draft appendix, and a draft liaison statement. TD-265r1 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is the proposed Recommendation T.38 Annex E. The base text was modified slightly by the ad hoc. The example was removed and placed in a separate document as a draft appendix. As the updated text does not contain changes of a technical nature, it was agreed that it can serve as the base text for Decision at this meeting. When draft T.38 Annex E (as contained in TD-265rev1) was proposed for Decision in the SG8 plenary, the United States elected to take the four week rule, to wait for Decision on Recommendation H.248 in SG16 the following week. (Editor’s note: H.248 was not approved by SG16; it was re- Determined with a goal of Approval at an interim SG16 meeting in June, 2000.) TD-267 (G. Parsons, Nortel) contains modifications to Rec. T.38 Annex E (Enhancement of fax capabilities of Rec. H.248), which are a result of additional work underway to enhance the fax capabilities of Rec. H.248. Additional packages to support fax features are for Decision in the fall of 2000. It was noted that the draft T.38 Annex E Amendment 1 as contained in TD-267 also has a dependency on the H.248 approval situation. Amendment 1 to T.38 Annex E was Determined by SG8 as TD-267. TD-266 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is a proposed Draft Recommendation T.38 Appendix V. It describes an example of the procedures for internet-aware facsimile implementations and internet-aware facsimile gateways conforming to T.38 to establish calls with other T.38 implementations using the procedures defined by T.38 Annex E and H.248. It was pointed out that the example pertains to Facsimile Capable Media Gateways; the title will be changed to reflect this. It was proposed that the document be attached to the meeting report, to be approved when SG16 completes the related fax package Annexes of H.248. TD-268 (G. Parsons Nortel) is a draft liaison to Q14/16 on H.248 fax packages; it includes the new proposed Appendix to T.38 for their comment. TD-269 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is a proposed corrigendum to Recommendation T.38. Sometime between the time the ASN.1 definition was developed and the time T.38 was published, the ellipsis was dropped from the IFP-Packet.Data-Field.field-type definition. This corrigendum fixes this omission. SG8 approved the corrigendum to T.38. TD-262r2 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is an updated version of the draft Annex D for Recommendation T.38 on support of T.38 using the IETF Session Initiation Protocol.. The reference to AVT tones has been marked for further study, since it was not yet given an RFC number. TD-289 (G. Parsons, Nortel) proposes modifications to Recommendation T.38 Annex D. These modifications are a result of additional work nearly completed in the IETF to allow transmission of DTMF tones over RTP transport. T.38 Annex D Amendment 1 was Determined by SG8 as TD-289. TD-263 (G. Parsons, Nortel) contains registrations to be sent to IANA to register additional fields of SDP as described in Rec. T.38 Annex D. TD-309 (G. Parsons, Nortel) is the proposed communication to convey this information to IANA. T.38 Annex D was Decided by SG8 as TD-262rev2.

AD HOC GROUP AND JOINT MEETING WITH Q4/16 AND Q23/16 ON V.8/V.34 OVER T.38 TD-272 (M. Mehta, Nortel) describes a procedure for handling a V.8 handshake and falling back from a V.34 half-duplex to a V.17 connection for a T.30 facsimile terminal connected to a T.38 gateway. The proposed scheme covers all the modulations that use V.8 to determine the modulation mode, including those described by Recs. V.90, V.34, V.17, V.29, and V.27ter. It suggests that if there is a long network delay and the ANSam time-out expires, this will automatically result in the called terminal issuing V.21 flags and a DIS, since there was no valid response to the ANSam prior to the time-out elapsing. A total of three scenarios are reviewed: small network delay, very large network delay, and large network delay. The ad hoc recommends that the procedures described in this contribution be included in an Amendment to Rec. T.38 to describe V.8 handling. TD-274 (M. Mehta, Nortel) is a draft liaison to Q4/16 and Q23/16 for proposed V.8 handling procedure for Recommendation T.38. It includes (attached) TD-272. A short joint meeting (reported in TD-273r1) was held with Q4/16 and Q23/16 to discuss the issue based on D.227 (Canada, above). Although no specific results were achieved at the meeting, a number of useful points were developed: 1. Specific bit pattern needs to be specified in D.227. It was agreed to mention alternate one-zero bit pattern in the revised proposal in TD-272, above. 2. Figures 2 and 3 need modification to clearly specify when F1 starts transmission of CJ sequence. This change was included in the revised proposal in TD-272. 3. In scenario 2, G1 needs to disable V.8 capability bit in DIS sequence received from G2 before transmitting it to F1. This change is mentioned in the text below Figure 2 in the revised proposal in TD-272. 4. It was agreed that the revised document, TD-272, be attached to the meeting report, but not merged with the Maidenhead document COM8-R12 (Attachment 1: draft amendment to Recommendation T.38 to support the use of V.34 modulation). 5. Some manufacturers expressed interest in testing out the V.8 handling method proposed in revised proposal in TD-272. Any issues found will be contributed to the next meeting. 6. It was agreed that a Rapporteur’s meeting to progress the work of supporting V.34 facsimile in T.38 is desired. The basis of the work should be COM8-R12 and TD-272. TD-273r1 (D. Duehren, Brooktrout) is the final report from the Ad Hoc Group on V.8 and V.34 over T.38. It was reported that TD-272 will be attached to the meeting report, but will not yet be merged with the previous work attached to the Maidenhead meeting report (COM8 R-12). It was agreed that a Q4 Rapporteur’s meeting will be held to progress the work (June, 2000 near Washington, DC). IAF AD HOC GROUP TD-277r1 (H. Endo, IAF ad hoc Chair) is a report from the Ad Hoc on Internet Aware Fax devices. The main objective of the meeting was to propose modifications to Recommendation T.38 with respect to Internet-aware fax devices. It proposes revision of text in T.38 to handle the case of communication between two Internet-aware fax devices. It was noted that TD-277r1 also contains proposed amendments to T.38; it is not exactly in the form of an amendment. TD-276 (H. Endo, IAF ad hoc Chair) is another report of the ad hoc group; it adds related functionality to Group 3 fax to enable recognition of the case where the terminals on both ends are Internet-aware fax devices. The question was raised whether this approach would have an impact on situations where one side is an Internet-aware fax device and the other is a gateway. It also contains additional proposed amendments to Rec. T.38 to better explain the interworking scenarios as related to the data management methods. It was agreed to include the proposed solutions in an Implementer’s Guide as well as in a proposed amendment to Rec. T.38 for Determination at this meeting.

JOINT MEETING WITH Q13/16 AND Q14/16 TD-311 (H. Silbiger, Q4/8 Rapporteur) is the joint meeting report. The approved version of H.245 will contain the T.38 enabling material conveyed by liaison from SG8. TD-256 (D. Skran, Lucent, Q13/16 Rapporteur) is a liaison from Q13/16 in response to the Q4/8 liaison regarding progress in resolving certain issues related to H.245 capabilities and signaling. It notes that the approach suggested is welcomed by Q13/16, and that the requested changes will be approved in H.245v6. However, it cautions, the entire ASN.1 of H.245, not just a small sub-tree, must be compiled to ensure interoperability. It also notes that a new procedure for switching from voice to fax channels using H.225.0 call signaling only and not H.245 is being adopted for H.323v4, and suggests that this may be of interest to Q4/8. TD-254 (G. Freundlich, Lucent, Q14/16 Rapporteur) is a liaison from Q14/16. It notes that Q14/16 was unable to prepare a T.38 fax package specification for inclusion within the set of packages to be Decided as part of H.248v1. It also invites Q4/8 to work with either the IETF Megaco Working Group to create an RFC, or with Q14/16, to finish the work on such a package. In the latter case the package would be Determined as an Annex of H.248 in February, 2000, for Decision in the fall of 2000. Guidelines for package documentation agreed by the experts of Q14/16 are attached. The use of TPKT (D.221) was discussed. The key question was whether there is an additional layer of packetization which is required when TCP/IP is the transport method for T.38. It was concluded that TPKT use would provide Application Layer Framing. It will aid in interoperability with other protocols such as H.225 and H.248 when using TCP/IP. It was suggested that this information be placed into an Implementer’s Guide or that a note be created. SG8/Q4 will determine the best procedure to address this. D.222 proposes that a TCP channel be opened up separately in both directions when using T.38 with TCP/IP. It was noted during discussion that H.245 uses a bi-directional channel. No conclusions were reached. TD-268 from Q4/8 is a liaison statement to Q14/16 on H.248 fax packages. It contains example material that is not for Decision at this SG8 meeting. The material will be reviewed by SG16. Since there is a question about where the work will continue during the next study period, it is probably best for the report to come back to SG16 who will provide a liaison back to SG8 and possibly a communication back to Megaco. SG16-D.332 includes a series of examples for fax and modem calls in H.248. The material in this document, along with related text explanations, could eventually become a appendix to H.248. It was suggested that an example be added to show the cases of what happens at the end of the call, in ending a fax call or returning to voice. IMPLEMENTER’S GUIDE FOR T.38 TD-308, the proposed T.38 Implementer’s Guide, was prepared by the T.38 editor (D. Duehren, Brooktrout) to collect several points which clarify the Recommendation. It contains material on the addition of the TPKT header to the IFP/TCP/IP packet. In discussion, it was agreed that this feature is needed in the T.38 TCP-based protocol. To enable implementers to take notice of this addition, the Implementer’s Guide will be useful; text to amend T.38 will be prepared for the next meeting of the Question. The Guide also contains material resulting from discussion on the use of IAF terminals. This material will also be produced as an amendment to T.38 for Determination. The Implementer’s Guide as shown in TD-308rev1 was agreed. A comment was made by S. Perschau (US) noting that such a guide should not be used as a substitute for an approval process. It was noted that the responsibility for the Implementer’s Guide is under the editor and the rapporteur. Implementer’s Guides are perpetual; it can be maintained. F. Cohen (TSB) noted that it is not binding as a Recommendation; it has no official status but is for the information of implementers.

APPENDICES FOR APPROVAL TD-299 (D. Duehren, Brooktrout) contains the clean text version of Recommendation T.38 Appendix II, Implementation Guide of Call Establishment Procedures described in T.38 Annex B. It is noted that this Appendix does not form an integral part of this Recommendation. T.38 Appendix II was approved by SG8 at the Plenary. SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS TD-271 (H. Silbiger, Q4/8 Rapporteur) proposes withdrawal of the following facsimile service Recommendations: ¥ F.551 (03/93) - Service Recommendation for the telematic file transfer within Telefax 3, Telefax 4, Teletex services and message handling services. This Recommendation is no longer needed since the characteristics of the file transfer capabilities are fully described in Rec. T.434 (BFT). ¥ F.581 (03/93) - Guidelines for programming communication interfaces (PCIs) definition: Service Recommendation. These guidelines have never been used by any technical Recommendation. F.551 was agreed for deletion. However, F.581 is referenced by active Recommendation T.611 on PCIs for Telematic Services; therefore, deletion of F.581 was deemed premature. It was agreed that the responsibility for T.611 going forward should be a topic for the SG8 plenary discussions on the future work for facsimile related questions. TD-271rev1 is the revised proposal. INTERIM Q4/8 MEETING An interim Q4/8 meeting will be held in June 2000 in the United States, near Washington DC to progress the work on V.8 and V.34 over T.38. A. Machionni (SG8 Vice Chair) asked if the rapporteur’s meeting would be added to the WTSA report; The Chair stated that it would depend on the deadline. However, the real value of the meeting is to provide a basis for ongoing work. QUESTION 5/8, COLOR FOR TELEMATIC APPLICATIONS Q5/8 studies the use of color in telematic applications, the best known of which is facsimile. The Q5/8 Rapporteur is L. McIntyre (Xerox, USA). The Q5/8 meeting report is TD-314r1. The Action Plan is in TD-305rev1. It was noted that one participant disagrees with the plan. TD-287 is a liaison to ISO SC29 regarding fast track ballot comments. The document T.44 is in the process of being standardized as ISO 16485. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS It was suggested by Siemens that there may be patents related to the JBIG-2 work. However, there is no specific information available, so that the TSB says it is not able to make use of this information. The chair suggested a statement to the effect that there are no more new declarations. It was agreed that the second paragraph of this section of the meeting report should be deleted. The following day, Siemens introduced TD-323. It claims that there is a need to file IPR statements for T.89, based on the implication that the T.88 patent holders also need to make statements for T.89. The Question 5/8 rapporteur disagreed; since T.89 does not specify coding, the IPR claims may not be applicable. He noted that Xerox does not believe there is IPR related to T.89 as related to the Xerox claims for T.88. NEW QUESTIONS FOR THE NEXT STUDY PERIOD Due to lack of time, there was not a plan to put together a new question for Question 5/8 work. The Chair noted that in the absence of a question plan, it is hard to provide guidance to the WTSA to continue questions like Q5/8 and Q6/8. He also noted that it may be advisable for the Study Group to suggest plans to the ITU-T for a more efficient group of questions, rather than just continue the work on questions from one study period to the next. In particular, he believes there is a need to find a consensus for the group on the questions which are needed. Further inputs to the plenary were encouraged. TD-321, a resulting proposal for a new question, was accepted.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION T.44 ANNEX B AND T.44 AMENDMENT 1 COM8-103 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is the Draft Annex B to Recommendation T.44, Mixed Raster Content (MRC) Mode 4 - Shared Resources and Colour Tags, Determined during the April SG8 meeting. This Annex defines provisions for sharing resources across pages, stripes, and layers, and for using color tags as a means of representing text color. These provisions play an essential role in the application of Rec. T.88 - JBIG2 (Joint Bi-level Image Group). JBIG2 realizes significant compression gains by sharing symbol dictionaries across pages and page components; additionally, the colors of JBIG2 encoded text may be represented by color tags to realize even greater compression gains over conventional bitmap representation of the text colors. COM8-99 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains proposed revisions of Draft Annex B to Rec. T.44. It corrects technical oversights exposed through implementation experience. TD-247 (T.44 editor) contains the consolidated version of COM8-103 and COM8-99, plus additional technical changes to accommodate the introduction of Annex B. Rec. T.44 Annex B as contained in TD-247 was Decided during the February, 2000 SG8 Plenary. TD-244 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) proposes responses and editorial clarifications to Rec. T.44 in response to a request received from ISO/IEC SC 29. ISO/IEC SC29 is considering fast-track approval of T.44 as ISO/IEC Standard 16485. In response to balloting of T.44, the Austrian delegation submitted a list of requested editorial clarifications together with their approval response. TD-291 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is a copy of the Austrian ballot comments. TD-287 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is the liaison response to the Austrian request; it offers the requested clarifications. TD-288r1 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains Rec. T.44 editorial changes extracted from TD- 244. They were extracted to facilitate identification of the editorial changes resulting from the ISO fast track approval process that are to be submitted for Resolution 1 Decision consideration during the SG8 Plenary. It also contains an editorial clarification from the Q5/8 meeting. T.44 Amendment 1 as contained in TD-288r1 was Decided by SG8. DRAFT REC. T.45, RUN-LENGTH COLOR ENCODING COM8-102 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains the draft Recommendation T.45, Run-length Color Encoding, which was Determined during the March, 1999 SG8 meeting as TD-170. SG8 Decided Draft Rec. T.45 Run Length Colour Encoding, as COM8-102. T.4 AND T.30 FAX APPLICATION OF T.44 ANNEX B AND JBIG2 T.4 Amendment 1 COM8-105 (Rec. T.4 editor) is the Draft Amendment 1 to Recommendation T.4 (1999) (see Q1/8 report, above). It contains T.4 Annex H amendments needed to support T.44 Annex B and JBIG2. The base text is Recommendation T.4 as Decided by SG8 in April, 1999. It includes two changes to T.4 Annex E: specification of the restriction on the use of the horizontal image size parameter of a JPEG data stream, and amendment of the definition of spatial resolution to cover all standardized resolutions. It includes a change to Annex H, covering mixed raster content black and white images. SG8 Decided T.4 Amendment 1 as COM8-105. T.30 Amendment 1 TD-307 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is a proposed amendment to COM8-106 (see Q1/8 report, above), Amendment 1 to Recommendation T.30, Annex l (1999). It recommends Q1/8 define discreet values for the three memory levels represented by bits X+10 and X+11 in Table 2/T.30 of COM8-106. It was agreed to forward this to Q1/8 for their consideration. The SG8 plenary Decided T.30 Amendment 1 as COM8-106add plus revisions per TD-290rev1.

T.89, APPLICATION PROFILES FOR REC. T.88 - JBIG2 FOR FACSIMILE COM8-108 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is the draft ITU-T Recommendation T.89, Application Profiles for Rec. T.88 - JBIG2 for Facsimile. Its application profiles are defined based on the relatively general JBIG2 profiles recommended in draft Recommendation T.88 | ISO/IEC 14492, represented as COM8-96 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur). In its nature it is similar to Rec. T.85, which specifies a facsimile application profile of Rec. T.82 - JBIG1. It was Determined at the SG8 plenary in Maidenhead, September, 1999. This was discussed by the ITU/ISO/IEC Collaborative Team JBIG at their last meeting in USA, in December, 1999. At that meeting JBIG also finalized the draft T.88 - JBIG2 standard, and extended its own application profiles, upon which draft T.89 is built. In general, all profiles have been made normative, and two additional low-end profiles (low memory requirements and low/medium processor speed, low IPR burden) were introduced. These two new profiles are particularly suitable as bases for facsimile applications as they are not only simpler, but provide a comparable, excellent performance similar to the originally suggested Profile 5. TD-229 (F. Ono, JBIG Rapporteur) is a liaison to SG8 on Rec. T.89. It notes that the text of the FDIS for draft ITU-T T.88 | ISO/IEC 14492 has been expanded to include two new profiles for low memory, and that the Appendix describing profiles has been updated with improved terminology and made normative. D.209 (Germany) states the German Administration’s full support of the changes to draft T.89 as proposed by the JBIG Collaborative Team in the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 liaison letter to ITU. Consequently, it approves draft T.89, on condition that it be modified in accordance with the changes proposed. TD-245 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) supersedes COM8-113. The primary objective of COM8-113 was definition of JBIG2 decoder dictionary memory levels, which were left to be determined for the three JBIG2 facsimile application profiles documented in COM8-108. It also provided performance data for the three T.89 profiles. TD-245 presents a revision of the COM8-113 data and proposes new decoder dictionary memory levels for the ISO advocated revision of T.89 profiles. The performance data has been revised per the profile changes. TD-246rev1 includes some revisions that were made based on input from the JBIG committee. A related liaison from ISO/IEC JITC 1/SC 29 /WG1 is contained in TD-229. It contains markups to the draft T.89 as input into the group. It is the current draft text for T.89. There is agreement on profiles 1 and 3; profile 2 is the area of dispute. TD-246r3 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains a mark-up of COM8-108 accommodating profile changes and editorial enhancements based on ISO’s proposals. Based on recommendations from TD-245, it also defines the JBIG2 Fax Profiles table memory level (i.e., rows 18 and 22), which were designated as TBD (To Be Determined). TD-292 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is an addendum to TD-246. It defines the memory levels that had been left for further study, based on recommendations from the memory level and performance studies conducted and documented in TD-245. TD-248 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) presents a full tutorial on JBIG2 Halftone Treatment, which was developed and contributed by D. Tompkins and F. Kossentini, both of the University of British Columbia. TD-260 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains a proposed revision of draft Recommendation T.89 based on the recommendations from ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 JBIG Committee and changes made to T.88 | ISO/IEC 14492 profiles by the JBIG Committee. However, it does not accommodate all the changes recommended by the JBIG Committee; it provides reasons for this.

TD-304 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur), provides questions from Japanese members with responses about technical points of T.89. It clarifies the following: ¥ Profile 1, 2, and 3 can use mixed data (text, halftone) in the same stripe, but this application is restricted in the case of Profile 1 and 3 ¥ Only Profile 2 can handle the use of color data in strips ¥ Profile 2 can handle mixed JBIG2 data in MRC structure each stripe, indicating which is text, halftone or color in header indication of each stripe of MRC data ¥ Where does MRC Recommendation (T.44 Annex B) describe handling of JBIG2 data? Additional description may be needed in T.44 Annex B. TD-307 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is a proposed amendment to COM8-106 (see above, under T.30 Amendment 1). It also proposes deleting reference to the interpretation of the three memory levels being defined in T.89. TD-317 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains open discussion points on Draft New Recommendation T.89. Agreement could not be reached on the exact contents of T.89. In particular, Germany has requested the deletion of profile 2 from this document, but there was no consensus to do this. As a result, the rapporteur recommended that draft T.89 be withdrawn from consideration for Decision at this meeting. The intent is to defer the Decision until next meeting, while some additional review and testing is conducted. There was substantial discussion at the SG8 plenary on the best way to proceed. There was no specific decision initially, other than to wait until some consensus is reached. One of the administrations thought that it might be best to approve the mandatory profile now and mark the others for further study. It was noted that many resolutions are possible. The rapporteur and some other administrations want to consider the package of T.89 as a whole. The SG8 chair stated that the last chance to include information in the chairman’s report to the WTSA is during the next several months. T.43 AMENDMENT 1 COM8-104 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) is Amendment 1 to T.43. In March, 1999, SG8 adopted new higher resolutions of 300x600, 400x800, 600x600, 600x1200 and 1200x1200 pels/25/4 mm, while 100x100 pels/25.4 mm had been introduced a year earlier. T.43 needs to be amended to comprehend the appropriate square resolution subset of these new resolutions. This Amendment is performed in a manner that accommodates future T.30 resolution enhancements without requiring corresponding amendments. SG8 Decided T.43 Amendment 1 as COM8-104. QUESTION 6/8, COMMON COMPONENTS FOR IMAGE COMMUNICATION The Q6/8 Rapporteur is I. Sebestyen (Siemens, Germany). The agenda is TD-231r1. The action plan is in TD-233r2. The meeting report is TD-290r1.. The substantial part of the technical work in Q6/8 is being done by the Collaborative Team JPEG/JBIG, formally installed by ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 and ITU-T SG8 in 1997. Their last meeting was held in December, 1999, in the USA. TD-281 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) is the draft new Question for the 2001 - 2004 study period. Although the understanding is that SG8 has completed its mission, the text of this Question was drafted as if SG8 would continue in the next study period. The chair noted that the work during this study period was done exclusively within ISO/IEC. He has had trouble justifying the continuing involvement of the ITU in this standardization and publication. In particular, he believes that the rules do not really permit SG8 to make any changes to documents at the point of Determination or at the point of Decision. Therefore, he suggests that Q6/8 review the level of cooperation and approach that are needed.

RECOMMENDATION T.88, JBIG2

COM8-96 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains the base text of draft Recommendation T.88, Information Technology - Coded Representation of Picture and Audio Information - Lossy/Lossless Coding of Bi-Level Images (ISO/IEC FCD 14492), commonly known as JBIG2. This was Determined during the March-April SG8 meeting; since then, ISO/SC29/WG 1 issued the final technical version as FCD 14492 (Final Committee Draft). This standard will expand compression for black/white images (e.g., by a factor of 10 for MR coded facsimile pages on text with “subjectively” lossless images, and about the same as JBIG1 for “dithered” images). There will be--at least for the decoding--a “baseline” system (ITU-T T.88 Annex F Profiles 6 [for arithmetic coding] and 7 [for Huffman coding]) where IPR will be according to 2.1 (license fee free) of the ITU patent policy. Some other components of T.88, which will not be part of the “baseline,” go with 2.2 (licenses on reasonable terms and conditions).

D.205 (L. McIntyre, Q5/8 Rapporteur) contains significant editorial changes made to draft Recommendation T.88 | ISO/IEC 14492 at the December meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1, to be included in the Approved version of the Recommendation. For each change, the relevant page number of the base text (COM8-96) is given. TD-282 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) contains two editorial corrections to COM8-96: a change in the flowchart, and a change in the Unicode comment. Recommendation T.88 was Decided at the SG8 plenary as COM8-96, plus D.205 and TD-282. The ISO plan is for IS text submission in April, 2000. Patent issues The following patent statements were received: TD-278 IBM IBM Patent Statement submitted to ISO for JBIG2 TD-250 Xerox Xerox Patent Statement related to JBIG2 TD-243 Kangwoon University Patent Statement Received For Draft Rec. T.88 (JBIG2) - Korea At the time of writing this report, no statements to the ITU had been received from IBM, Mitsubishi, KDD, or CLI. Mitsubishi and KDD have filed a statement with the ISO and promised to deliver the statement to the ITU. No statement is expected from CLI, but the patent runs out in October 2000, so it is likely that no implementations will be affected. In addition, the JBIG committee requested that following companies holding patents that may restrict the anticipated usage modes of JBIG2 make these patents available for free licensing: Xerox, IBM, Kangwoon University, KDD, and CLI. T.800, JPEG2000 D.206 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) is draft Recommendation T.800 | ISO/IEC CD15444-1, Information Technology - JPEG 2000 Image Coding System - Core Coding System. Attached is the first CD Draft of JPEG-2000; this will be followed by at least a FCD and FDIS version on the ISO/IEC side. This Recommendation defines a set of lossless (bit-preserving) and lossy compression methods for coding continuous-tone, bi-level, gray-scale, or color digital still images. It specifies: ¥ Decoding processes for converting compressed image data to reconstructed image data ¥ A code-stream syntax containing information for interpreting the compressed image data ¥ A file format and provides: ¥ Guidance on encoding processes for converting source image data to compressed image data ¥ Guidance on how to implement these processes in practice

This is the long awaited next generation system for the current JPEG for a wide range of applications, including telematic, mobile, medical, satellite, etc. The base technology is a wavelet-based algorithm. The interest in JPEG 2000 is huge; about 150 experts from 17 countries currently participate in JPEG. TD-225, Requirements and profiles version 6.0 (July, 1999) (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29/WG1), provides background and application areas of JPEG 2000. JPEG 2000 is planned to allow royalty-free licensing and is intended to complement, not replace, current JPEG standards. JPEG 2000 is not bitstream compatible with current JPEG standards. More information can be found on the JPEG/JBIG Web-site: http://www.jpeg.org. TD-285 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) was presented for information; it notes that JPEG has prepared the WM (Verification Model) 6.0 Code of T.800. The code is available only in electronic version on the SG8 informal FTP area. Comments should be directed directly to JPEG or through Q6/8. Recommendation T.800, JPEG2000, was Determined by SG8 as D.206. Other phases are still under review within ISO WG1. T.870, JPEG LOSSLESS EXTENSION D.207 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) is draft Recommendation T.870 | ISO/IEC 14495-2, Information Technology - Lossless and Near-lossless Compression of Continuous-tone Still Images- extension. This Recommendation defines a set of lossless (bit-preserving) and nearly lossless (where the error for each reconstructed sample is bounded by a pre-defined value) compression methods for coding continuous-tone (including bi-level), gray-scale, or color digital still images. It specifies: ¥ Extensions to processes for converting source image data to compressed image data ¥ Extensions to processes for converting compressed image data to reconstructed image data ¥ Coded representations for compressed image data and provides guidance on how to implement these processes in practice. T.870, JPEG Lossless extension, was Determined by the SG8 plenary as D.207. NEW COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS WITH ITU-T SG8 Both D.206 and D.207 were Determined by SG8, with the goal of harmonizing the approval process with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29. This is targeted for the first quarter of 2001, with the request that the translation into languages other than English take place only when the DIS text is available. Due to subdivision of the JPEG-2000 still image coding system, SC29 approved the following projects be published as Common Text in cooperation with ITU-T: JTC 1.29.10.01 (15444-1): ITU-T Rec.T.800|ISO/IEC 15444-1 “Core System” JTC 1.29.10.02 (15444-2): ITU-T Rec.T.801|ISO/IEC 15444-2 “Extensions” JTC 1.29.10.03 (15444-3): ITU-T Rec.T.802|ISO/IEC 15444-3 “Motion JPEG 2000” JTC 1.29.10.04 (15444-4): ITU-T Rec.T.803|ISO/IEC 15444-4 “Conformance Testing” JTC 1.29.10.05 (15444-5): ITU-T Rec.T.804|ISO/IEC 15444-5 “Reference Software” It was noted that SC29 endorsed WG1 to develop its proposed Motion JPEG 2000 (Part 3), and that in developing this project, the benefits of a solution that integrates with other SC29 standards, such as MPEG, should be kept in mind. This requirement was expressed most strongly from the digital camera manufacturers and the Motion Picture Industry using Motion JPEG for film editing purposes.

TD-284 (I. Sebestyen, Q6/8 Rapporteur) was presented for information; it notes that JPEG has prepared the draft of T.801, JPEG 2000 Extensions. Now that the Committee Draft (CD) has been completed (December 1999), and Part 1 has been Determined (February 2000), the following schedule for JPEG 2000 (T.800) is expected by the JPEG/JBIG committee:

FCD FDIS IS DEC Mar. ’00 Jul. ’00 Dec. ’00 Mar. ’01? DEC (Decision) is the ITU’s next step. The Decision date might be affected by SG reorganization and change of ITU voting rules. Future ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1 (JPEG/JBIG) meetings are shown in Table 1. 2000 March 13-17 Tokyo, Japan 2000 July 3-7 Arles, France 2000 December 3-8 New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 2001 March 5-9 Singapore (co-located with WG11, SC29 Plenary) 2001 July Stockholm, Sweden 2001 November Rochester, New York, USA 2002 March TBD 2002 July TBD 2002 November TBD Table 1. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1 (JPEG/JBIG) meeting schedule.

JPEG 2000 IPR ISSUES The IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) statements for JPEG 2000 received by ISO (JPEG) are shown in Table 2. The goal is that the Part 1 (“Core”) license be free.

WG1N1441 Motorola Motorola patent statement for JPEG 2000 WG1N1445 LizardTech LizardTech’s patent on MrSID technology WG1N1500 Sony Sony patent statement for JPEG2000 WG1N1505 Mitsubishi ROI licenses related to JPEG 2000 Part 1 WG1N1508 Algo Vision IP statement WG1N1521 K. Jung/Germany LuraTech’s patent on linebased DWT WG1N1524 TeraLogic TeraLogic patent position on JPEG 2000 Table 2. IPR Statements received by ISO for JPEG 2000. There is also the intent to develop “reference software.” It was noted that there were some questions regarding the color model to be used for JPEG 2000. In a previous response from the JPEG committee on this issue, it was indicated that they did not believe that the ITU’s use of Cielab would present a problem. The related liaison from ISO/IEC is TD-259. F. Cohen (TSB) indicated that he has been in contact with ISO and it appears that ISO will be the copyright holder to the JPEG 2000 software, but this has not yet been confirmed. James Rafferty, Brooktrout Technology

REPORT OF DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 8 – 11, 2000, PARIS, FRANCE G. Young (British Telecom) is the DSL Forum (formerly ADSL Forum) technical committee chair. The Board of Directors of the Technical Steering Committee consists of T. Starr (Ameritech), G. Young (BT), M. Jackson (Virata), L. Humphrey (Nortel), and K. Kahn (Intel). DSLForum00-069 is a summary of the progress of the DSL Forum technical committee at the end of this meeting. The DSL Forum web site is at http://www.adsl.com. DSLForum00-084 lists the marketing committee group chairs. The DSL Forum’s formal technical work divides into the following areas, each within a separate working group: ¥ Architecture & Transport (A&T; formerly ATM) ¥ Voice over DSL (VoDSL) ¥ Operations & Network Management ¥ Testing and Interoperability ¥ Symmetric DSLs ¥ Emerging DSLs study group (including VDSL) Each project develops technical reports called Working Texts (WT-xxx), which are web-site documents that capture and organize work in progress. As work completes, the WT becomes a Technical Report (TR), subject to membership approval, which is then made public and distributed by the Forum to interested parties. In many cases, the Forum identifies a particular requirement for ADSL, and then advises an accredited standards body, such as T1E1 or ITU Q4/15, of this requirement, in the hopes that suitable action will be taken. DSLForum00-085, Implementing ADSL in Digital Loop Carrier Serving Areas, was presented by A. White (BellSouth Telecommunications) at the Plenary. Approximately 40% of BellSouth’s Customer lines are served from some 40,000 Digital Loop Carrier Sites. In order to provide ubiquitous ADSL service, BellSouth had to devise methods to provide ADSL on the subloops served by these DLC sites. Working with ADSL equipment and Outside Plant enclosure vendors, BellSouth has implemented one of ten individual ADSL Remote Solutions at some 3,000 non-NGDLC sites (to date). ARCHITECTURE AND TRANSPORT M. Jackson (Virata) is the chair of the Architecture and Transport Working Group. B. Dugerdil (Motorola) is the Vice-Chair. D. Allan (Nortel) is the chair of the ATM Network Architecture Break- Out Group. The report of this working group is DSLForum00-076. Straw ballot comments on WT-032v4, CPE architecture recommendations for access to legacy data networks, were resolved; WT-032v5 will be sent to final letter ballot. This document describes four protocol architectures to be used in the deployment of ADSL Customer Premise Equipment (ATU-R). The architectures conform to TR-012 (PPP over ATM, PPPoA) and the requirements outlined in TR- 018 (Requirements for CPE architectures for data access). DSLForum00-052 (R. Gade, Pulscom) provides Pulsecom’s yes vote and editorial comment (ATM Forum document reference) on WT-032.

DSLForum00-008 (D. Allan, Nortel) addresses service selection, identification, authentication, and auto-configuration and architecture aspects of semi-permanent PPP (always-on) connections. The fundamental problem is supporting the equivalent of always on permanent users in ADSLF PPP based architectures. The existing method has typically been to not use PPP but to use RFC 1483 bridging. However, mass deployment of PPP architectures makes it desirable to offer this service model on a common infrastructure. The issue is avoidance of additional configuration of the CPE device.

For RFC 1483 bridged PVC, there was no dynamic NSP selection function, it is provisioned; there is no in-band identification or authentication function, this is guaranteed by physical connectivity. What is desirable is to have the PPP maintain its own virtues while subsuming the virtues of 1483 PVC. Further, it is desirable to do this side by side with dynamic PPP such that the set of services offered by the NAP is maximized. Key areas identified are selection, identification, and authentication. This was moved to the living list as a potential TR-025 (Core network architecture for access to legacy data network over ADSL) enhancement. Sufficient interest from network service providers is required to justify further effort. DSLForum00-053 (R. Gade, Pulscom) provides the updates to the ATM Forum Signaling sections of TR-017, ATM over ADSL Recommendation, based on the recent ATM Forum work. A BOF session on MPLS (IETF Multiprotocol label switching) was held. The report is DSLForum00-075. DSLForum00-066 (D. Allan, Nortel Networks) provides a tutorial presentation of MPLS. MPLS is label substitution combined with source routing. DSLAMs must terminate and originate MPLS signaling (stub network routing). Carriers indicated strong interest in an end-to-end IP QoS solution and see MPLS as a way forward. Consideration of numerous access issues is still needed to ascertain the benefits and understand the scalability of MPLS. Future contributions on this will be covered in the architecture group. DSLForum00-002 (G. Young, BT) offers a tutorial overview of some of the security aspects of ADSL- based (always-on) networks. It suggests that the Forum generate a detailed, technical white paper on this topic, as well as a less technical white paper, to include FAQs. These can then be posted on the DSL Forum web site and also used by the Forum’s PR representatives to provide information on this topic. In response to the marketing group’s request for assistance on security issues, volunteers have come forward to help develop this material, including representatives from Eicon, Arescom, BellSouth, and Ramp Networks. The Architecture and Transport WG next steps include: ¥ Seek information on existing Residential Gateway definition efforts ¥ Need to document de-facto architectures. B. Stark (BellSouth) will lead on this; a submission is planned for the Orlando meeting (May 2000) ¥ End to end QoS; NSPs to provide requirements for the Orlando meeting ¥ SymDSL applicability of existing recommendations; review work of SymDSL group and ETSI work on TC layer development for emerging ITU G.shdsl standard JOINT MEETING WITH OPERATIONS AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT WG Joint meetings were held with the Operations and Network Management WG on auto-configuration. The initial phase of this work is to examine VC (virtual circuit) establishment. Consideration is being given to a bootstrap type sequence that first attempts connection using any customer premise equipment (CPE) defaults. It would then attempt to use ILMI (ATMForum Interim local management interface), which can be used to autonegotiate use of multiple VCs. If this should fail, then a VC verification process to establish a single VC/connection would be used. JOINT MEETING WITH TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY WG A joint working session on higher layer protocols for testing and potential interoperability issues in end-to-end testing was held. DSLForum00-013 is the minutes of a teleconference held on January 14, 2000 by the Test & Interoperability WG. At this joint meeting, the main concern was RFC 1483, Multiprotocol encapsulation over ATM Adaption layer 5, test cases in the DSLForum test plans. The joint meeting reviewed the existing Testing & Interoperability documents: Implementation Conformance Statements (ICSs), static interoperability testing, dynamic interoperability testing (performance). Two documents, ADSLForum99-181 (G.dmt interoperability test plan), and ADSLForum99-183.4 (G.lite interoperability test plan) contain test cases for PPPoA and RFC 1483.

PPPoA has one test case in the current DSLForum 99-183.4. This test was to be revised during this meeting by the Interoperability Sub-Working Group. There was some discussion of the use of VP/VC (virtual packet/virtual circuit) for testing. It was recognized that Implementation Conformance Statements are desirable. It is planned to request statements of configurations used for SuperComm, CES, etc., as well as interoperability testing (plugfests and qualification events). Interoperability is defined as across the “U” interface and also end-end. It was recommended to bring results to IETF to advance RFC 2364 (PPP over ATM Adaption Layer 5) from draft to proposed standard. A need was identified to document non-TR-012 architectures. VOICE OVER DSL (VODSL) G. Wetzel (Covad Communications) is the chair of the VoDSL Working Group. The VoDSL Working Group Editor is P. Simmons (Starnet Technologies). The objective of the VoDSL WG is to provide a set of requirements, architectures, and recommendations that provide end-to-end solutions for the delivery of interoperable derived telephony services. Its focus is Broadband Loop Emulation Services (ATMForum AAL2 BLES protocol) and Voice over Multi-Service Broadband Networks (VoMBN); these two subgroups are expected to approximately align with the use of VToA and VoIP, respectively. There is also a technical marketing activity focused on white papers, linkage to the Forum’s marketing group, etc. The WG is in the process of producing a requirements document (WT-043); the two sub-groups are producing solution descriptions covering recommended architectures, etc. The VoDSL WG will also work with the ATM Forum VTOA WG on requirements for BLES, and to develop the necessary AAL2 specification to support BLES. WT-043 is the requirements document; it describes the requirements for providing Voice over a Multi- Service Broadband Network (VoMBN) utilizing DSL broadband access links shared by at least two services. It includes the main body, Annex A (BLES), and Annex B (VoMBN). DSLForum00-046 (S. Gupta, Accelerated Networks) highlights the importance of supporting AAL2 and SVCs over the emulated loop between the CO-IWF and CP-IWF as proposed for VoDSL service; it proposes text to be included in WT-43 for the same. WT-043 was reviewed; including Annexes A and B, it will now go to straw ballot with a view to discussing and resolving straw ballot comments in May. Contributions addressing straw ballot comments on each of the three aspects of the working text are solicited. WT-043 Appendix B, on latency issues, was further developed from information provided in three contributions: ¥ DSLForum00-040 (S. Op de Beek, KPN Telecom) is an informative contribution on latency issues related to VoDSL. BLES (G.711) over ATM over ADSL introduces approximately 10 ms delay. Worst case delay for a single G.726 at 32 kbit/s voice channel transported over a 64 kbit/s ADSL link is approximately 19 ms. BLES (G.711) over ATM over ETSI SDSL introduced approximately 6 ms delay. Compared to DECT access technology, delays introduces by BLES are of the same order of magnitude. ¥ DSLForum00-047 (M. Taylor, CopperCom) describes the factors that contribute to transmission delay in VoDSL access networks. The end-to-end delay introduced in the voice path by typical VoDSL implementations falls within an acceptable range, taking into account the limits suggested by G.114 and the allowances that must be made for other components of delay in a range of different call scenarios. The end-to-end delay introduced into the signaling path by typical VoDSL implementations is also within acceptable limits, at least in terms of the requirements for North America defined by TR-57. CCS-based signaling is inherently less precise than CAS signaling in its

ability to reproduce short duration signaling events, and in certain configurations may not meet the requirements of TR-57. CCS-based signaling is also far more sensitive to bit errors in the network, and may require special steps to be taken at the system design level to ensure that operations such as pulse dialing can reliably be supported. ¥ DSLForum00-054 (R. Fardid, G. Wetzel, Covad Communications) notes that various standards provide bounds for network delay for voice. Some of these are end-to-end delay bounds and some are protocol-based delays (e.g., for frame encoding in G.992.1). This contribution looks at two aspects: a reasonable assignment of delay budget to the access network and the various contributors to delay in a VoDSL/BLES implementation using ATM/AAL2. The ITU-T recommendation G.114 suggests that a national network incur no more than 50 ms of delay to an international gateway. The propagation of signals in TDM networks across one half the width of the United States is approximately 20 ms. Thus the current optimistic calculation places the one-way delay of a national VoDSL call at 47 Ð 53 ms, assuming one end is VoDSL and the other is PSTN. If VoDSL were to be widely deployed and therefore used in many instances at both ends of a call, the delay would increase. In the case of BLES, the amount attributable to VoDSL in a local call would approximately double to 54 ms and 65 ms for PCM and ADPCM, respectively, making the one-way delay in a national network approach 74 ms Ð 85 ms, respectively. DSLForum00-058 (J. Reister, Copper Mountain Networks) proposes a CPE/DSLAM interface definition for voice over frame-based DSL to be included as an annex to VoDSL document WT-043. This proposal leverages the work already in progress on BLES in end-to-end ATM networks. A large fraction of installed DSL is frame-based. With this proposal, the rapidly evolving BLES developments are extended to this large and growing DSL base. DSLForum00-063, the technical marketing document used for background to press and PR personnel, was also reviewed. The current draft of this paper describes the loop emulation solution; a future version will include MultiService Broadband Networks. A voice quality tutorial was given to bring Forum members up to date on the various impairments that impact voice quality and how Mean Opinion Score (MOS) and R-ratings are used. OPERATIONS & NETWORK MANAGEMENT G. Bathrick (Lucent Technologies) is the Network Management & Operations Chair. WT-024, ADSL network management architecture, offers a structured framework for addressing operational network management requirements. Its scope is definition of an ADSL network management architecture to address ADSL service management requirements utilizing TMN concepts. As a result of this architecture, a protocol-independent set of objects shall be defined for use in the service management layer and the network management layer applications. The TMN Business layer management is outside the scope of this document. Requirements generated in the form of NORMs by the ADSL Forum’s Operations group will be used as a starting point. WT-039, ADSL Network Element Management, updates TR-005. This project describes parameters or elements of ADSL transceiver operation that are subject to network management. WT-040v3 proposes an alternative OAM communications channel across the U-Interface. The straw ballot on this was completed; it now moves to letter ballot. WT-041, ADSL EMS to NMS Functional Requirements, passed the letter ballot and now becomes TR- 030. It provides high level functional requirements describing an upstream (north-bound) interface from an ADSL Element Management System (EMS) to a Network Layer Inter-domain Network Management System (NMS). WT-042, ADSL service MIB, specifies an NMS/EMS interface for flow-through provisioning of ADSL customers as well as fault management. Standardization of this interface has been proposed in the DSL Forum.

WT-044 is the placeholder for current work items for the Operations and Network Management working group. WT-045 provides a protocol-independent object model for ADSL EMS-NMS interface. The straw ballot on this was completed; it now moves to letter ballot. Also, it was agreed to start a new WT as a revision to WT-045v1, to include performance management information based on DSLForum00-011, Performance Management Requirements for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface (A. Tuzel, R. Abbi, Alcatel). WT-046 is the CORBA (Common Object Broker Architecture) specification for the ADSL-NMS interface. FLOW-THROUGH MANAGEMENT DSLForum00-048 (A. Shah, Vitria; K. Johnson, Earthlink) defines the first set of several information flows that enable automation of the DSL service business-to-business interfaces between Service Providers, Regional Network Providers, and Access Providers. This version describes the information flows for Fulfillment processes; future versions will include information flows for Service Assurance and Billing processes. This was discussed; it was agreed that a modified version will be the basis of new WT. M. Sibbit (Nightfire) was appointed editor for the WT. DSLForum00-079 is an outgoing liaison to ATIS requesting a liaison between the DSLForum and two forums operating under ATIS: The Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) and the Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF) which currently support access providers and loop providers. The DSLForum would like to assist in the integration of their work into Service Fulfillment, Service Assurance and Billing (supply chain standardization). DSLForum00-078 is a similar request to the TeleManagement Forum which creates telecom operations maps to support the processes of fulfillment, assurance and billing. FAULT DIAGNOSTICS Progress on the formation of a focus group was presented. DSLForum00-039 (P. Adams, BT) gives a definition of demarcation requirements in a multi-provider environment and discusses a framework for considering the options for meeting the requirements. Specifically, it defines demarcation boundaries, types of testing methods, fault management models, and communications requirements. This was discussed; it will be progressed to the Orlando (May) meeting as a draft WT. AUTO-CONFIGURATION OF CPE WT-048, DSL CPE auto-configuration, defines a set of parameters to be used for configuring and/or provisioning of DSL CPE connection parameters, and recommends protocols for the transport of these parameters. It also describes an initial, but incomplete, set of DSL service deployment scenarios from which the parameters are partially derived. This was reviewed, and in discussion it was agreed to include protocol ID’s in WT-048, as contained in DSLForum00-024 (P. Silverman, 3Com; D. Grossman, Motorola; D. Allan, Nortel; B. Perry, Efficient Networks; E. Michelsen, Copper Mountain). Enhancements are proposed to the ATM Forum auto-configuration MIB client protocol ID and failure trap, and their formal endorsement by the DSL Forum is suggested, to be indicated in a liaison to the ATM Forum. This was agreed. The auto-configuration proposal for semi-permanent PPP connections using PPP layer authentication (rather than RFC 1483 bridging layer) presented in DSLForum00-008, Semi- Permanent PPP Connections (sP4) (D. Allan, Nortel, see above), was discussed and agreed. TESTING & INTEROPERABILITY F. Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) is the Testing & Interoperability Working Group Chair. The Montreux T&IWG meeting minutes (DSLForum00-004) were reviewed and accepted unchanged. The next T&IWG teleconference is scheduled for Mar. 8, 11 AM - 12:30 PM EST. The report of the T&I WG is DSLForum00-089.

WT-029, ADSL Dynamic Interoperability Testing (editors H. Verbueken, Alcatel; W. Picken, National Semiconductor), passed the letter ballot; it is now TR-029, ADSL dynamic interoperability testing. DSLForum00-057 is a late comment on TR-029, by PairGain Technologies, presented by G. Eisler (Conexant). This proposed change to replace the pass/fail BER measurement in section 6.4 of TR-029 with a margin measurement, and other comments were incorporated into living list of TR-029. The need for both 100 and 135 Ohm impedances, for European applications, was discussed. The straw ballot comments on WT-028 and WT-035 were reviewed. DSLForum00-031 (MCI) approves both WT-028 and WT-035. DSLForum00-036, (3COM) votes yes with comments on WT- 035. DSLForum00-045 (University of New Hampshire) provides an edited version of WT-028, to further the resolution of all comments. It was agreed to incorporate the changes of DSLForum00-045 into WT-028, and to add one ATU-R for Test 5.008 (rather than having two ATU-Cs). WT-035 was edited to address the 3COM comment about autonomous messages in G.992.2 with an added statement. With these changes, the comments on WT-028, ADSL ANSI T1.413-1998 Conformance Testing (ed. S. Valcourt, U. of New Hampshire), and WT-035, ITU-T G.992.2 (G.lite) ICS (ed. S. Finkman, Orckit), were resolved. The letter ballots will be initiated after a three-week final editing review. WT-030, ADSL Static Interoperability Test Specification (ed. B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments), progressed. A target date remains to be determined. DSLForum00-087 is from TIA TR-30.3 (TR-30.3/99-04-620, AG Communications, Lucent). This tutorial contribution, with supporting test measurements, characterizes three ubiquitous, non- continuous POTS events: ringing, supervision and dial pulse in order to illustrate that intra-bundle interference in DSL frequency bands has been present for decades in the PSTN. These normal events represent cross-talk impairments of changing magnitude, which are more severe than the classes currently under consideration for the Spectrum Management standard. Incoming liaisons were introduced from TIA TR-30.3 and T1E1.4, with a verbal liaison response from ITU-T SG15 Q4 (they couldn’t take action based on our input liaison; they needed details of test conditions and readouts). DSLForum00-074 is a response liaison to the TR-30.3 liaison (DSLForum00-059a) which answered DSLForum questions. It also notes the proposed change to replace the pass/fail BER measurement in section 6.4 of TR-029 with a margin measurement. After the memorandum of understanding with ETSI is settled, it was agreed to investigate ETSI noise models and to learn more about the ETSI permanent interoperability lab in Sophia Antipolis. Several new projects in ETSI ATAc on POTS/xDSL compatibility and ADSL/POTS splitter specifications were discussed. The DSL forum is developing a new interoperability test information release process, and will respond more completely to requests from Q4/15 and others. Data from the participants in interoperability events will be made available subject to the agreements of the participants, without naming individual participants. INTEROPERABILITY SUB WG The G8 selected the University of New Hampshire as the test house. S. Valcourt of the U of NH will be the Interoperability Sub WG Deputy Chair. E. Seagraves (Centillium) will be the editor of the G.dmt interoperability test plan. DSLForum00-088 (C. Hansen, Intel) proposes new tests for G.922.1 interoperability in addition to the tests in the G.lite test plan: framing modes 1 and 2, fast and interleave buffer (dual latency), STM, data rates in multiples of 32 kbit/s up to 6144 kbit/s downstream and 640 kbit/s upstream, tone ordering (different than G.992.2 due to dual latency), bit swap, ATU-R support of NTR, and the upstream and downstream R, S and D parameters identified. The ISWG (Interoperability Sub Working Group)agreed to support:

• Additions to G.dmt and G.lite test plans including, for Interop events: PPP, RFC 1483, fast/interleave and framing modes. The test numbers were reordered to correspond to the G.lite test plan. • Planned additions to test plans include STM, tone ordering, ATU support of NTR, and others. • Test goals for next G.dmt and G.lite Interop event were agreed to include Fast/Interleave Buffer and Loop Reach/Rate. • SuperComm 2000 Technical Requirements Set: ÐTests 1-7(*) in G.dmt and G.lite Interop Test Plans (avail. Feb. 18) ÐTest #6 -- 15 kft 26 AWG Clean Loop 384/128 Kbit/s ÐTest #7 -- Either PPP over ATM or RFC 1483 Plans include an all vendor event at U of NH March 20-24, and a SuperComm staging lab at U of NH May 22-26 (both events using G.dmt and G.lite tests 1-7(*)) and any-to-any interoperability June 7-9 at SuperComm 2000 in Atlanta, GA. DSLForum00-082 is the G.992.1 Interoperability test plan R1.3 (editor E. Seagraves, Centillium). DSLForum00-073 is a liaison to ITU-T SG15/Q4. It notes that improvements (improved bit rate and reach, increased robustness to RFI, bridged taps and imbalance, improved interoperability and expanded diagnostics) are needed in the G.992.x Recommendations. The DSLForum is concerned about the timetable of these improvements, given that they will likely not be Determined at the April, 2000 SG15 meeting and requests that Q4/15 develop an Implementers Guide addressing these issues by the third quarter of 2000. The ISWG also held a joint planning session with the marketing group to plan future demonstration events. Exploration of the following four dimensions is necessary to extend interoperable capabilities: ¥ Interoperability with line cards capable of full rate and lite operation via G.994.1/G.hs exploitation to demonstrate flexibility and wider applicability of the modems ¥ Extend performance for data transfer over longer copper loops in the presence of realistic noise to demonstrate increased customer reach potential of the technology ¥ Extend interoperability to higher layers in the protocol stack (ATM, PPP, IP) to demonstrate a wider range of applications ¥ Include 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 to consumers. SYMMETRIC DSL The Symmetric DSL group has the following leadership structure: Chair C. Hall (Cisco) Vice-Chair R. Segev (Nokia) Editor B. Ronen (Orckit) Tech Rapporteur R. Segev (Nokia) Marketing Rapporteur M. Vexler (Cisco) The group has previously defined three classes of Symmetric DSL: ¥ Channelized and unchannelized (legacy) systems to replace T1 and E1 service ¥ Proprietary multi-rate 2B1Q and CAP systems ¥ Emerging standards including ITU and ETSI Work is focused on the third category. At a joint meeting with the Architecture working group, it was concluded that the DSL Forum EDSLSG (see below) should monitor and assist ATM-TC developments in ITU and ETSI. Also, it was considered desirable that the DSL Forum should develop a “branding” of SymDSL to differentiate new ETSI SDSL and ITU G.shdsl from legacy proprietary SDSL nomenclature.

The WG decided that the DSL Forum should develop a MIB definition for SymDSL (ETSI SDSL and G.shdsl) based on the DSL Forum ADSL MIB. This work should be progressed in the Operations & Network Management WG and monitored by the EDSLSG. In view of the low level of resources available to the group and the lack of contributions, the EDSLSG will, for the time being, cover SymDSL issues, probably jointly with the Transport sub WG on ATM TC issues. EDSLSG will also monitor progress elsewhere and promote work as necessary in the DSL Forum Working Groups (e.g., Symmetric DSL MIB in the Operations & Network Management WG). EMERGING DSLS STUDY GROUP (EDSLSG) D. Greggains (Gorham & Partners) is the EDSL Study Group Chair. L. Humphrey (Nortel) is the Technical Rapporteur. The scope of this Study Group covers all standards-based or standards- compliant DSL technologies and related system architectures which extend the xDSL domain beyond ADSL and other existing systems; it also covers those DSLs for which standards are currently under development. DSLForum00-023 (S. Say, Next Level Communications) identifies misconceptions about VDSL that appear on the ADSL Forum web site. NLC (Next Level Communications) has focused on VDSL and disagrees with the idea that VDSL deployment will trail ADSL deployment. NLC also notes that VDSL service needs to be planned to operate over POTS and ISDN. At the previous meeting, the group agreed to develop a document to be titled “Aspects of VDSL Evolution” (WT-047, ed. C. Storrey, Newbridge) to guide the future work of the Forum; at this meeting, drafting work on WT-047 was begun. D. Clarke (BT) provided an FSAN update on the progress of the concurrent FSAN VDSL group meeting. The next step for the WG is to consider the desirability of developing DSL Forum recommendations for applications and service requirements relating to Transport Protocol Specific TC sub-layers for VDSL; for example, to support DS3, and fractional DS3, transport services on one or more pairs by pair bonding. WT-047 Schedule: Orlando, May 2000 Ðagree contents list Dublin, Aug. 2000 Ðdraft contents - not agreed Portland, Dec. 2000 ÐStraw Ballot It was agreed to work by e-mail to progress further before Orlando. Text contributions will be incorporated with “under study” status.

DSL FORUM MEETING ROSTER, FEBRUARY 8 – 11, PARIS, FRANCE Gavin Young (British Telecom) Technical Committee Chair Frank Van Der Putten (Alcatel) Technical Committee Vice Chair Martin Jackson (Virata) ATM End-to-End Chair Dave Allan (Nortel) ATM Network Architecture Chair David Greggains (Gorham & Partners) Emerging DSLs Study Group Chair Greg Bathrick ( Lucent Technologies) Operations & Network Management Chair Cliff Hall (Cisco) Symmetric DSL Chair Fred Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) Testing & Interoperability Chair Greg Wetzel (Covad Communications) VoDSL Chair

Host: AMD

01Reseaux Gerard Schmitt 2Wire Ted Fagenson [email protected] 2Wire Randy Turner [email protected] 3Com Anne Kim [email protected] 3Com Peter Silverman [email protected] 3Com Bruce Trumbo [email protected] Accelerated Networks Sudhir Gupta [email protected] Accelerated Networks Philip Kim [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Jacob Fainguelernt [email protected] Admit Design Systems Douglas Hay [email protected] Advanced Fibre Comm. Jim Brede [email protected] Advanced Fibre Comm. Moshe Oron [email protected] Advanced Fibre Comm. Kathy Stutz [email protected] Advanced Fibre Comm. Richard Waldschmidt [email protected] Advanced Micro Devices Brian Beasley [email protected] Advanced Micro Devices Steve Bretoi [email protected] Advanced Micro Devices James Covell [email protected] Advanced Micro Devices Patrick Green [email protected] Advanced Micro Devices A. Homer Lloyd [email protected] Agilent Technologies Steve Bell [email protected] Alcatel Rajesh Abbi [email protected] Alcatel Stan Claes [email protected] Alcatel Guus Claessen [email protected] Alcatel Tom Conklin [email protected] Alcatel Jerume Delmotte [email protected] Alcatel James Fausch [email protected] Alcatel Gerard Gastaud [email protected] Alcatel Herwin Marguillier Alcatel Yves Tjoens [email protected] Alcatel Frank Van der Putten [email protected] Alcatel Marc Vancoppenolle [email protected] Alcatel Marc Verhoeyen [email protected] Analog Devices Bertrand Campagnie [email protected] Analog Devices Dennis Chan [email protected] Analog Devices Joseph O'Dea [email protected] Analog Devices Dennis Robinson [email protected] Aplion Networks Edward Ulicki [email protected] Arescom Rick Lyons [email protected] Arescom Raymond Momut [email protected] Arescom Jerry Venturas [email protected]

ARMT Avi Horwitz [email protected] ARMT Zvi Levgoren [email protected] ARMT I tay Nave [email protected] AT&T Laboratories Thomas Shen [email protected] Audiocodes Ben Rabinowitz [email protected] Aware David Benini [email protected] Aware Peter LeBlanc [email protected] Basis Communications Nabil Damouny [email protected] Befound Internet Hosting Svcs Michael Brusca [email protected] Belgacom Koen Berteloot [email protected] Belgacom Nicolas Wezel [email protected] Bell Atlantic Marianne Berry [email protected] BellSouth Telecommunications Lee Crawley [email protected] BellSouth Telecommunications Laurie Gonzalez [email protected] BellSouth Telecommunications Barbara Stark [email protected] Broadband Digital Group Gerard Papa Broadband Technologies Randy Sharpe [email protected] BT Peter Adams [email protected] BT David Thorne [email protected] BT Gavin Young [email protected] Cabletron Systems Philip Rakity [email protected] Cadence Design Systems Colin Alexander [email protected] Catena Networks Gary Bolton [email protected] Catena Networks Peter Johnson [email protected] Cayman Systems Russell Parker [email protected] Cayman Systems John Stephens [email protected] Centillium Technology Earnest Seagraves [email protected] Centillium Technology Paul Stephenson [email protected] Cetecom Andreas Ehre [email protected] Cetecom Toma Macavei-Katocz [email protected] Cetecom Jean Montenot [email protected] Cisco Systems Rajiv Kapoor Cisco Systems Marcus Maranhao [email protected] Coilcraft Chris Allan [email protected] Compaq Computer Corporation Rabah Hamdi [email protected] Concentric Network Lyn Gulbransen [email protected] Concentric Network James Southworth [email protected] Conexant Nick Burd [email protected] Conexant George Eisler [email protected] Conexant Jim Webster [email protected] Conklin Corporation Lujack Ewell [email protected] Consultronics Florin Hodis [email protected] Copper Mountain Networks Eric Michelsen [email protected] Copper Mountain Networks John Nevius [email protected] CopperCom Stefan Knight [email protected] CopperCom Martin Taylor [email protected] Coreon Rafael Ben-Michael [email protected] Covad Communications Greg F. Wetzel [email protected] Covad Communications Joel Yang [email protected] CS Telecom Said Dami [email protected]

CS Telecom Simon Mabong Data Connection Toby Eccles [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Cristoph Nikolai [email protected] Digicom Systems Jim Lo [email protected] Earthlink Jim Anderson [email protected] Earthlink Karen "KJ" Johnson [email protected] Earthlink Bryan Way [email protected] ECI Telecom Hassan Ahmed [email protected] ECI Telecom Moti Morgenstern [email protected] ECI Telecom Yigal Rappaport yigal.rappaport@@ecitele.com Efficient Networks Bill Perry [email protected] EICON Technology Hugues de Fombelle [email protected] EICON Technology Peter Geier [email protected] EICON Technology Hiep Nguyen [email protected] EICON Technology Richard Paris [email protected] EICON Technology Franck Thierry [email protected] Elastic Networks Robert Wooldridge [email protected] ELCON Systemtechnik Kai-Uwe Potempa [email protected] Element 14 John Redford [email protected] Element 14 Mark Taunton [email protected] Ericsson Jan-Olof Andersson [email protected] Ericsson Lars-Olof Haster [email protected] Ericsson Tom Idermark [email protected] Ericsson Piotr Korolkiewicz [email protected] Ericsson Peter Larsson [email protected] Ericsson Raymond Murphy [email protected] Ericsson Hans-Erhard Reiter [email protected] Ericsson Jan Simons [email protected] Ericsson Franz Starnberger [email protected] Ericsson Mats Svensson [email protected] Ezenia! Tom Daly [email protected] Fastcomm Communications Steve Silverman [email protected] First Telecom Rupert Baines First Telecom Dan Simpkins Fluke Corporation Fred Kaudel [email protected] Formus Communications Farzin Froughi [email protected] France Telecom Niger Philippe [email protected] Fujitsu Hussein Ali [email protected] Fujitsu Robert Daley [email protected] Fujitsu J erome Delhaye [email protected] Fujitsu David E. L. Jones [email protected] Fujitsu Peter Komisarczuk [email protected] Fujitsu Shahbaz Rahmanian [email protected] Fujitsu Laurent Uguen [email protected] General Bandwith Ken Cavanaugh [email protected] General Bandwith Brian Henrichs [email protected] General Bandwith Cuong Nguyen [email protected] General DataComm Gilles Pipernos-Schatz [email protected] GlobaLoop Alon Cohen [email protected] GlobaLoop Oded Weinstein [email protected] GlobeSpan Dawn Diflumeri-Kelly [email protected] Gorham & Partners David Greggains [email protected], GTE Corporation Leonard Andrews [email protected] GTE Corporation Daniel Burch [email protected]

GTE Corporation Vyvyan Donahue [email protected] GTE Corporation Thomas Helmes [email protected] GTE Corporation Gary McAninch [email protected] Harris Corporation John Gerard [email protected] Harris Corporation Jorge Rivera [email protected] Hellenic Telecom. Org. Nikolaos Antoniadis [email protected] Hellenic Telecom. Org. Iakovos Orfanos [email protected] Integral Access David Gunning [email protected] Integral Access Antti Kankkunen [email protected] Integral Access Marc Parent [email protected] Integral Access Tom Sack [email protected] Integrated Telecom Express Ralph Cognac [email protected] Integrated Telecom Express Jow Peng [email protected] Intel Craig Cedros [email protected] Intel Joey Chou [email protected] Intel Robert Ferguson [email protected] Intel Juan Garza [email protected] Intel Andrew Hendry [email protected] Intel Kevin Kahn [email protected] Intel Phillip Skeba Intertek Testing Services Chris Bowlin [email protected] Italtel Lucio D'Ascoli [email protected] ITRI Hong Yueh-Nong [email protected] Jato Communications Steve Blasingame [email protected] Jersey Telecoms Simon Vivian [email protected] KPN Telecom Stefan Op de Beek [email protected] KPN Telecom Willem Verkerk [email protected] KTL Maarten JC Amse [email protected] KTL Steve Kingdom [email protected] KTL Andrew Ombler [email protected] LASAT Networks Benny Jensen [email protected] LASAT Networks Jens Kofoed [email protected] LASAT Networks Steen Madsen [email protected] LASAT Networks Andreas Sand [email protected] Lucent Technologies Randy Brown [email protected] Lucent Technologies Eric Deichstetter [email protected] Lucent Technologies Ofir Fatoorechi [email protected] Lucent Technologies Harry Mildonian, Jr. [email protected] Marconi Communications Wolfgang Kluge Wolfgang.Kluge@marconicomm Marconi Communications Sabrina Lettere [email protected] MCI Worldcom Eric Kouch [email protected] MCI Worldcom Robert Morris [email protected] MCI Worldcom Jeri Pitoniak [email protected] MCI Worldcom Kevin Sievert [email protected] MCI Worldcom Daryl Tannis [email protected] Mitel Corporation Kelvin Steeden [email protected] Motorola Christian Assier [email protected] Motorola Pascal Cintract [email protected] Motorola Bernard Dugerdil [email protected] Motorola Dan Grossman [email protected] Motorola Daniel Hoste [email protected] Motorola Jacques Issa [email protected] Motorola Matt S. Nelson [email protected] National Semiconductor William Picken [email protected]

NDS Jonathon Beavon [email protected] NEC Akio Bannai [email protected] NEC Carmelo Bonaccorso [email protected] NEC Yannick Duquesne [email protected] NEC Jean-Philippe Giraud [email protected] NEC Baldwin Ip [email protected] NEC Johannes Jentjens [email protected] NEC Donovan Nak [email protected] NEC Simon Webster [email protected] NET Antony Bichon [email protected] NET Philippe Decottignies [email protected] NET Gerhard Marx [email protected] Netopia Didier Cop [email protected] Netopia Phil Simmons [email protected] Newbridge Networks Yvonnick David [email protected] Newbridge Networks Jacques Guenneugues [email protected] Newbridge Networks Brian Harvey [email protected] Newbridge Networks David Heatley [email protected] Newbridge Networks Chuck Storry [email protected] Next Level Communications Gregory Drukala [email protected] Next Level Communications Sabit Say [email protected] NightFire Software Manuel Lozano [email protected] NightFire Software Jerry Rudisin [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Paulus Carpelan [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Arnaud Michel [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Bruno Poisson [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Jari Torkkel [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Jouko Tormanen [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Rune Udd [email protected] Nokia Telecommunications Pasi Vaananen [email protected] Nortel Networks David Allan [email protected] Nortel Networks Kenneth Couch [email protected] Nortel Networks Igor Czajkowski [email protected] Nortel Networks Nabil Gebrael [email protected] Nortel Networks Les Humphrey [email protected] Nortel Networks Chip Mayo [email protected] Northpoint Communications Mike Borsetti [email protected] NorthPoint Communications Mark Peden [email protected] NTT Corporation Shinichi Aoyagi [email protected] NTT Corporation Osamu Inoue [email protected] NTT Corporation Hiroshi Ishii [email protected] NTT Corporation Michiharu Mito [email protected] NTT Corporation Ken Moriya [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Henri Suyderhoud [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Takayuki Tanaka [email protected] OpenCon Systems Jonathon Ma [email protected] OpenCon Systems Frank Scolara [email protected] Orckit Communications Eli Aloni [email protected] Orckit Communications Danny Arazi [email protected] Orckit Communications Nigel Cole [email protected] Orckit Communications Shai Finkman [email protected] Orckit Communications Iris Getz [email protected] Orckit Communications Omer Goldfisher [email protected] Orckit Communications Amit Kazzaz [email protected]

Orckit Communications Yaron Lederman [email protected] Orckit Communications Sharon Mantin [email protected] Orckit Communications Lior Moyal [email protected] P.R. Unlimited Kristi Kosloske [email protected] Pairgain Technologies Oliver Schmidtke [email protected] Pairgain Technologies John Wang [email protected] Paradyne Ed Landis [email protected] Paradyne Charles Mele [email protected] PCTEL Bob Reid [email protected] Pielle Consulting Carol Friend [email protected] PMC Sierra Richard Cam [email protected] Power Line Forum Nadine Bezerk-Lazarus Profec Group Richard Spicer [email protected] Promatory Communications Greg Hill [email protected] Pulse Robert Frost [email protected] Pulsecom Raja Gade [email protected] Pulsecom Scott Harris [email protected] RAD Data Communications Udi Klasdi [email protected] Ramp Networks Raghu Bathina [email protected] Ramp Networks Ashok Ramchandra [email protected] Redback Networks Gilles Concordel [email protected] RHK Frederique Dame [email protected] RHK Joseph Savage [email protected] Rhythms NetConnections Robert Masitti [email protected] Rit Technologies Dael Govreen-Segal [email protected] Sagem Group Guy Alauze [email protected] Sagem Group Eric Dalle [email protected] Sagem Group Priscilla Defoug [email protected] Sagem Group Jean-Marie Dunand [email protected] Samsung J ames Kwak [email protected] Santera Systems Micaela Giuhat [email protected] SBC Natalie R. Robinson [email protected] SBC Anna Salguero [email protected] SBC Tom Starr [email protected] Secre Composants S.A. Coudiere Francis [email protected] Secre Composants S.A. Benichou Jacques [email protected] Siemens Robert Beeman [email protected] Siemens Thomas Gemmer [email protected] Siemens Johann Maierhofer [email protected] Siemens Klaus Starnberger [email protected] Simpler Networks Marc Reeves [email protected] Sonera Corporation Jari Mononen [email protected] Spark Interactive Bill Dever [email protected] Spark Interactive Brian Fatteicher [email protected] Sphere Communications David Ward [email protected] Stackig Bill Lane STMicroelectronics Pascale Herbert [email protected] STMicroelectronics Edoardo Merli [email protected] Sumitomo Electric Industries Kazuya Matsumoto [email protected] Sumitomo Electric Industries Toru Murase [email protected] TDK Semiconductor Loc Nguyen [email protected] TDK Semiconductor Erik Pittana [email protected]\ Telcordia Technologies Lubomir Citkusev [email protected] Telcordia Technologies Peter LaRou [email protected]

Telcordia Technologies David Stevens [email protected] TeleChoice Daniel Briere [email protected] TeleChoice Rick Donalds TeleChoice Scott Gray Telecom Italia Lorenzo Magnone [email protected] Telecom Italia Tiziana Tascio [email protected] Telestyrelsen Jorn Johansen Telia Telecom Per Stromgren [email protected] Tellabs Matti Reini [email protected] Telrad Yuli Barcohen [email protected] Telrad David Hochberg [email protected] Telrad Iris Ziv [email protected] Texas Instruments Marcia Barnett [email protected] Texas Instruments Remi El-Ouazzane [email protected] Texas Instruments Dennis Gatens [email protected] Texas Instruments Neil Quarmby [email protected] TollBridge Technologies Marty Borden [email protected] TollBridge Technologies Bindhu Gill [email protected] TollBridge Technologies George Webb [email protected] Tollgrade Communications Rocky Flaminio [email protected], [email protected] Tollgrade Communications Wayne Lloyd [email protected] UUNET Technologies Ian Calderbank [email protected] UUNET Technologies Steve Groves [email protected] Velocity Communications Vijay Davar [email protected] Video Networks John Morgan Virata Corporation Martin Jackson [email protected] Virata Corporation Ron Kamm [email protected] Virata Corporation Bernie Valencia [email protected] Virata Corporation Jack Waters [email protected] Virata Corporation Bill Wike [email protected] Virtual Access Benjamin Ellis [email protected] Virtual Access Eugene Monaghan [email protected] Vitria Technology Amitabh Shah [email protected] Voicepump.com Steve Ammon [email protected] Westell Bhagvat Joshi [email protected] Westell Bill Rodey [email protected] Westell Marc Zionts [email protected] Wind Ovidio Michelangeli [email protected] Wind River Systems Kadir Ozdemir [email protected] Wong's International Dennis Chao [email protected]

ACRONYM DEFINITIONS 2B1Q 2 Binary 1 Quaternary AAL ATM Adaptive Layer ADPCM Adaptive Differential PCM ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line AGC Automatic Gain Control AM Amplitude Modulation ANSI American National Standards Institute ASN Abstract Symbol Notation ATAc ETSI ATA’s Conventional Technology WG ATIS Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode ATU-C ADSL Transceiver Unit - Central Office End ATU-R ADSL Transceiver Unit - Remote Terminal End AWG American Wire Gauge B&W Black and White B-ISDN Broadband-ISDN BER Bit Error Rate BLES Broadband Loop Emulation Service BOF Birds of a Feather CAP Carrier-less Amplitude modulation Phase modulation CAS Channel Associated Signaling CCITT Comité consultatif international télégraphique et téléphonique CCS Common Channel Signaling CD Committee Draft CJ CM terminator CM Call Menu CO Central Office CP Customer Premises CPE Customer Premise Equipment CSMA/CD Carrier Sense Multiple Access / Collision Detect DCME Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment DCS Digital Command Signal (T.30) DECT Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (ETSI standard ETS 300 175) DIS Digital Identification Signal DLC Digital Loop Carrier DMT Discrete Multi-tone Carrier DRA Dynamic Rate Adaptation DS1 1.544 Mbit/s T1 Interface DSL Digital Subscriber Line DSLAM DSL Access Multiplexer DTC Digital Transmit Command DTMF Dual Tone Multi Frequency EDH Electronic Document Handling EDSL Emerging DSL (DSL Forum Study Group) EDSLSG Emerging DSL Study Group (DSL Forum) EMS Element Management System ENP Extended Negotiation Procedure ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute FCS Frame Check Sequence FDD Frequency Division Duplexing FDIS Final Draft International Standard (ISO) FDM Frequency Division Multiplexing FEC Forward Error Correction FEC Forward Error Correction FEXT Far End Cross Talk FMT Filtered MultiTone FSAN Full Service Access Networks

FTTCab Fiber To The Cabinet GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GSTN General Switched Telephone Network (e.g., PSTN) HDSL High-rate Digital Subscriber Line HFX Hawthorne Facsimile Cipher HKM Hawthorne Key Management HPNA Home Phoneline Network Alliance IANA Internet Assigned Number Authority IC Interexchange Carrier IDLC Integrated Digital Loop Carrier IESG Internet Engineering Steering Group IETF Internet Engineering Task Force IFP Internet Facsimile Protocol ILEC Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ILMI Integrated Local Management Interface IP Internet Protocol IPR Intellectual Property Rights IS Interim Standard ISDN BRA ISDN Basic Rate Access ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network ISO International Organization for Standardization ISOC Internet Society ISP Internet Service Provider ISWG Interoperability Sub-Working Group (ADSL Forum) ITU International Telecommunication Union IWF Inter-Working Function JBIG Joint Binary Image Group JPEG Joint Photographics Expert Group LATA Local Access Transport Area LT Line Termination MAC Media Access Control MCM Multi-Carrier Modulation Megaco MEdia GAteway COntrol MIB Management Information Base MR Modified Read MR Modified Read MRC Mixed Raster Content NEXT Near End Cross Talk NGDLC Next Generation Digital Loop Carrier NID Network Interface Device NMS Network Management System NRZ Non-Return to Zero NT Network Termination NTR Network Timing Reference OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance OSI Open System Interconnection PAD Packet Assembler Disassembler PAM Pulse Amplitude Modulation PAR Peak to Average Ratio PBO Power Back Off PBX Private Branch Exchange PHY Physical Layer Working Group of ATM Forum PIC Primary / Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier PMD Physical Media Dependent layer POTS Plain Old Telephone Service PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PR Public Relations PSD Power Spectral Density

PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network PVC Poly Vinyl Chloride QoS Quality of Service RBS Robbed-bit signaling RFC Designation for an IETF Standard RFI Radio Frequency Interference RMS Root Mean Square RSA Public Key Cryptosystem invented by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman RT Remote Terminal RTP Real Time Transport Protocol (IETF) SCM Single-Carrier Modulation SDP Session Description Protocol SDSL Symmetrical high bit rate Digital Subscriber Line SIP Session Initiation Protocol (IETF) SNR Signal to Noise Ratio SRA Seamless Rate Adaptation SRGB Standard RGB (Red Green Blue) SRU Signal Regenerator Unit SRU-R Signal Regenerator Unit - Remote STM Synchronous Transmission Mode SVC Switched Virtual Circuit TBD To be Determined TC Technical Committee TC Transmission Convergence Layer TCP Transmission Control Protocol TDM Time Division Multiplex TDM Time Division Multiplex TIES Telecom Information Exchange Services TIES Time Independent Escape Sequence TMN Telecommunications Management Network TPDU Transport Protocol Data Unit (X.224) TPKT Transport Packet (T.123) TPS-TC Transport Protocol Specific-Transmission Convergence TS Technical Specification TSAG Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (ITU) TSB Telecommunications Standardization Board (ITU) TSB Telecommunications Systems Bulletin (TIA) UC-PAM Ungerboeck Coded PAM UDP User Datagram Protocol (IETF) UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UPBO Upstream Power Back-Off VADSL Very high speed ADSL VDSL Very high speed DSL VoDSL Voice over DSL VoIP Voice Over Internet Protocol VTOA Voice and Telephony Over ATM (ATM Forum) VTU-O VDSL Transeiver Unit at the Optical network unit VTU-R VDSL Transceiver Unit - Remote Terminal WG Working Group WT Working Text (ADSL Forum) WTSA World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly (ITU) xDSL all the different Digital Subscriber Line equipment

YEAR 2000 STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULES AS OF MARCH 8, 2000 Subject to Change without Notice

Committee Date(s) Location Committee Date(s) Location ETSI TIPHON #17 Mar 13 - 17 S. Antipolis, FR TR-29 Aug 7 - 9 --- TR-29 Mar 20 - 22 Newport Bch, CA TR-30 Aug 7 - 11 Quebec City/Banff TR-30 Note 1 Mar 20 - 24 Newport Bch, CA T1E1 Aug 14 - 18 Vancouver, BC ITU-T SG15 Apr 3 - 14 Geneva, Switz. TR-41 Aug 14 - 18 Vancouver, BC ETSI ATA Apr 10 - 14 S. Antipolis, FR TR-42 Aug 14 - 18 Vancouver, BC Q4, 7, 8, 23/16 Rap Apr 25 - 28 Co. Clare, Ireland DSL Forum Aug 29-Sep 1 Dublin, Ireland T1E1 May 1 - 4 Lisle, IL Q11-15/16 Rapp. September TR-30 May 8 - 12 Santa Rosa, CA ETSI TIPHON #20 Sep 18 - 22 Vienna, Austria TR-41 May 15 - 19 Tyson Corners, VA ETSI TM6-#19 Sep 18 - 22 --- Q11-15/16 Rapp. May 15 - 19 Osaka, Japan TR-30 Oct 9 - 13 Baltimore, MD TR-42 May 15 - 19 Tyson Corners, VA Q4/15 Rapp (prop.) Oct 23 - 27 India DSL Forum May 16 - 19 Orlando, FL Q19-20/16 Rapp Nov 8 - 10 Geneva, Switz. ETSI TIPHON #18 May 22 - 26 Ottawa, Ont ITU-T SG16 Nov 13 - 17 Geneva, Switz. ETSI TM6-#18 May 22 - 26 Helsinki, Finland T1E1 Nov 13 - 17 --- SG16 Jun 15 Geneva, Switz. TR-41 Nov 13 - 17 New Orleans, LA Q4/15 Rapp (prop.) Jun 19 - 23 --- ETSI TM6 #20 Nov 27-Dec 1 S. Antipolis, FR ETSI TIPHON #19 Jul 24 - 28 Munich, Germany TR-30 Dec 4 - 8 --- Q4, 7, 8, 9, 23/16 Jun 26 Ð 29 Edinburgh, Scot. DSL Forum Dec 5 - 8 Portland, OR Rapporteur ETSI TIPHON #21 Dec 4 - 8 Japan WP1/16 Jun 30 Edinburgh, Scot. TR-42 Dec 4 - 8 Charlotte/Atlanta Q4/15 Rapp (prop.) Jul 31 - Aug 4 Canada Note 1: G.pnt Mar. 23

The next issue of Communications Standards Review Ð Telecommunications (Vol. 11 #3) is scheduled for late March, 2000.

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

Communications Standards Review (ISSN 1064-3907) is published 9 - 10 times per year, within days after the 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 distribution within a subscriber organization is permitted. Subscriptions: $795.00 per year worldwide, paper or electronic format. Corporate Intranet subscriptions (Corporate license for multiple copies) are available. Submit articles for consideration 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 Road Palo Alto, CA USA 94303-3024 Voice: +1-650-856-9018 Fax: +1-650-856-6591 [email protected] http://www.csrstds.com

March 9, 2000

Communications Standards Review Electronic Format Policy

The distribution restrictions on the electronic versions of Communications Standards Review (CSR) are similar to the restrictions on the hard copy versions. Copying of individual articles/reports for distribution within an organization is permitted. The electronic version may be mounted on a server whose accesss is restricted to a single organization provided that only individual articles/reports are downloaded/accessed, not a complete issue of CSR. However, you are welcome to forward your copy (deleting it on your system) to others in your oganization. The intent here is that the electronic version of CSR has the same restraints as the hardcopy version but is easier/quicker to distribute within the organization in electronic form. Each issue is identified with a customer-specific identification number.

If you wish to receive both hard copy and electronic copy, the cost is $150.00 additional per subscription.

CSR also offers an Intranet subscription which permits unlimited copies to the subscribing organization ($2,150.00 per year).

Any questions? Please contact us.

Elaine J. Baskin, Ph.D. Publisher