COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEWCCITT Study Group XVII, and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have all worked to put forth technical documents that contain

October, 1991 Vol. 2.6 Copyright © CSR 1991 1

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDSREVIEW

Volume 2, Number 6 October, 1991

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.

Implementing the Evolving Test Standards for High-Speed Duplex Modems..................................................................... 2

Color Group 4 Facsimile Expert Group, August 26-30, 1991, Santa Clara, CA................................................................... 4

Color Facsimile Service And Requirements.................................................................................................................. 4

Jpeg Coding Parameters................................................................................................................................................. 5

Protocols And Draft Recommendation.......................................................................................................................... 9

Open Issues To Resolve For Jpeg.................................................................................................................................. 9

Open Issues To Resolve For Jbig.................................................................................................................................. 10

Editing Of Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Color Group 4 Facsimile Expert Group Roster,August 26-30, 1991, Santa Clara, CA ............................................... 11

TR-45.2 Intersystem Operations Subcommittee, August 26-29, 1991, Portland, Oregon................................................... 11

Opening Plenary ........................................................................................................................................................... 11

Working Group I - Message Encoding and Protocol Selection .................................................................................... 12

Working Group II - Automatic Roaming...................................................................................................................... 12

Working Group III - Enhanced Handoff Requirements ............................................................................................... 13

Working Group IV - Message Accounting ................................................................................................................... 13

Working Group V - Exceptional Transactions & Administration Support................................................................... 13

TR-45.2 Roster, August 26 - 29, 1991, Portland, Oregon ............................................................................................ 14

TR-45.1, Cellular Radio Equipment, September 17, 1991, Albany, New York................................................................... 15

TR-45.1 Roster, September 17, 1991, Albany, New York ........................................................................................... 15

1991 Meeting Schedules as of October 9, 1991 ................................................................................................................... 16

1992 Meeting Schedule......................................................................................................................................................... 16

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW

2 Vol. 2.6 Copyright © CSR 1991 October 1991

IMPLEMENTING THE EVOLVING TEST STANDARDS FOR HIGH-SPEEDDUPLEX MODEMS

For many years now, data communications engineers have been involved in testing the transmission performance ofmodems. This has generally required that the modem test engineer use a simulated telephone network to createtransmission impairments, and to then perform bit error rate tests in order to determine the modem's performance inthe presence of the impairments. In 1989, the EIA/TIA TR-30.3 committee issued the first industry standard modemtest specification: the EIA-496A standard. This document contained a series of six test channels that wererepresentative of telephone connections in the U.S. The intent of the standard was to provide a set of conditions thatwould indicate whether or not a modem would perform acceptably on telephone connections in the U.S.

The EIA-496A standard was a wild success. While most knowledgeable industry observers would acknowledge itsflaws, EIA-496A represented the first time that modem manufacturers, users, and third-party test labs could discussand compare modem testing results in a meaningful way. It has been applied widely to test and evaluation of V.22bis modems, and has even been applied to test V.32 modems, though it was never intended for that purpose.

In spite of its usefulness, EIA-496A simply did not acknowledge the existence of the emerging high-speed dialupmodems such as the current V.32 and V.32 bis types. These modems utilize echo cancellation to achieve high speedtransmission on dialup lines, but EIA-496A contained no conditions that would test a modem's ability to cancelechoes. EIA-496A also did not deal with the widespread deployment of digital transmission technology in thetelephone network. While earlier, lower-speed modems such as the Bell 212A or CCITT V.22 bis types have notrouble with digital network side-effects such as PCM quantization noise or ADPCM distortion, very high speeddialup modems exhibit much more sensitivity. As a result of these facts, the EIA/TIA TR-30.3 committee, theCCITT Study Group XVII, and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have all worked to putforth technical documents that contain test conditions for V.32, V.32 bis, and the emerging V.FAST classes ofmodems. None of this work is yet standard in the same sense as EIA-496A, but all have been or will be applied inmuch the same way -- to provide a common basis for modem performance comparison. All are official documentsissued by either the EIA/TIA TR-30.3 committee or CCITT Study Group XVII. A brief description of each of thesedocuments follows:

EIA/TIA TR-30.3/89-06048This document (from the June, 1989 TR-30.3 meeting) is notable because it has widely and erroneously beenreferred to as EIA-496B. This document was issued at the request of CCITT to provide a temporary set of testchannels for evaluating V.32 and 9600 bit/s asymmetrical modems. It used the same basic test system layout thatwas contained in the 496A standard, but added some test channels that contained echo conditions.

SG XVII TD-237The CCITT SG XVII special rapporteur on V.32 enhancements (R. Stuart, Penril) issued TD-237 (October, 1990) toprovide a test suite for evaluation of modulation schemes for 2-wire high speed duplex modems, i.e., V.32 bis andV.FAST. This test suite included, for the first time, a loop simulator appended to each end of the telephone networkemulator. The main purpose of the loop simulator was to simulate realistic near echo conditions. This documentalso specifies simulation of PCM and ADPCM channels.

SG XVII TD-237 RevisedAfter practical problems encountered by manufacturers in setting up and calibrating the test setup contained in TD-237, revisions were made to TD-237 at a special rapporteurs meeting in February, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, FL.These revisions are designated in Appendix A of the special rapporteur's report of the meeting (L114 plusL113Revised). This document refined the test scenario to contain a loop at only the modem under test end of theconnection, but it also indicated that a second loop be used at that end to balance the hybrid in the telephone networkemulator. The document also specifies an impedance isolation pad to guarantee good transhybrid loss at thereference modem end of the connection.

EIA/TIA TR-30.3 PN-2825 (Draft 6)This is the EIA/TIA TR-30.3 committee's testing recommendation for testing high-speed duplex modems (PN-2825Ballot version, Sept. 3, 1991). Like TD-237 Revised, this document also contains additional channels for explicitlytesting a modem's ability to cancel echoes. Like TD-237 Revised, it also specifies a loop at the modem-under-test



end of the connection to simulate realistic near echo conditions, and it specifies an impedance isolation pad at thereference modem end.

Needless to say, the above test conditions add a degree of complexity to modem testing that did not exist before.Figure 1 shows the basic test setup for performing all of the tests that have been referred to above. The elements ofthe test setup include the following:

Telephone Network EmulatorThis unit simulates the central office to central office (EO to EO) portion of the network. This unit includessimulation of analog transmission facilities, digital transmission facilities, and each central office (exchange).

Loop EmulatorThis unit simulates the subscriber to central office loop (NI to EO) at each end of the network. In addition , this unitprovides a "tracking loop" at each end of the connection to balance the Telephone Network Emulator hybrid.

Dual Data AnalyzerThe dual data analyzer generates and receives data patterns at each end of the connection and measures the bit errorrate and throughput for each set of test conditions.

Figure 1 goes here. Please see inserted page.

Figure 1. Basic Test Set-Up.

PC, SoftwareThe PC and automatic modem testing software automatically characterizes the modem performance with respect tothe test conditions.

Figure 2 shows the implementation of the test setup, using actual commercially available equipment, and Figure 3shows how the equipment must be interconnected. We have actually tested several V.32 bis modems with thissetup, and we find that it gives excellent results. In addition, we have developed test suites for our TASKITsoftware package that execute all of the above test conditions automatically. With this set of test suites, one cancharacterize a modem with respect to EIA-496A, TR-30.3/89-06048, TD-237, TD-237 Revised, and PN-2825completely automatically, in sequence, without stopping. To run the complete set of tests requires a few days time,but at the end, the modem is characterized with respect to all of the relevant test conditions.

Where We Go From HereAll of the test documents that have been issued since EIA-496A are temporary in nature. The industry still needs acomprehensive standard for testing high-speed duplex modems. However, the standards process being what it is, itis quite possible that EIA-496B may not be with us as an official specification until after it is needed. In themeantime, the above documents do provide a common set of conditions that people can use to compare modemperformance. It is quite likely that the test specifications for high speed duplex modems will evolve to include loopsat both ends of the connection, since 1) that's the way the network really is, and 2) the one-loop approach was atemporary solution to the problem of finding commonly available, economical dual-loop simulators, and thatproblem has been solved.

In Europe, ETSI is working to finally adopt its set of NET standards that will include conditions for testing high-speed duplex modems. These standards include additional test conditions and test system topologies that are notcontained in the EIA and CCITT documents, and are meant to provide a testbed for modems intended for theEuropean market. The basic design of the system is, however, the same as the one used for EIA/TIA and CCITTtests.

W. David Tarver, President, Telecom Analysis Systems, Inc., Eatontown, NJ`

Figure 2 and 3 go here. Please see inserted page.

Figure 2. Implementation of the Test Set-Up Figure 3. Equipment Interconnections.


4 Vol. 2.6 Copyright © CSR 1991 October, 1991

COLOR GROUP 4 FACSIMILE EXPERT GROUPAUGUST 26-30, 1991, SANTA CLARA, CA

The purpose of this Color G4 facsimile Expert meeting was to discuss the coding parameters to be used for colorfacsimile, in order to produce a first draft for a G4 color facsimile Recommendation.

COLOR FACSIMILE SERVICE AND REQUIREMENTS

CHOICE OF THE CODING ALGORITHM

The status and technical summary of JPEG and JBIG were reported:

• JPEG:June 1991: end of CD votingNovember 1991: DIS votingMay 1992: end of DIS voting

The work supports both lossy and lossless. The baseline system is lossy.

• JBIG:September 1991: start of CD voting (about half a year behind JPEG).

The present version is only lossless.

The JBIG committee is interested in utilizing the JBIG algorithm as a coding algorithm for color facsimile. JBIGnow allows the coding of color documents (multi-color, palletized, etc.) by coding "bit-planes". The comparison ofJBIG and JPEG (in lossless mode with arithmetic coding) shows best performance with JBIG for documents withless than 8 bits per pixel.

Therefore, JBIG could be an alternative to JPEG for lossless coding. In the case of continuous-tone images andlossy coding, JPEG is more appropriate.

STATUS OF COLOR IN FACSIMILE G3-G4

The relationship between color facsimile and Group 3 or Group 4 facsimile was discussed and the following resolutionwas adopted (CF3-16):

• Color (JPEG and JBIG) is regarded by the ad-hoc group as an option to the existing G3-G4 environment.

• The JPEG and JBIG algorithms are regarded as independent options to G3-G4 (however, commonality inprotocol parameters is a goal).

CHOICE OF THE COLOR SPACE

Except for some "high end applications" which require very high quality printing and where a specific color space(e.g., CMY[K]) is needed, Luminance-Chrominances spaces are considered as the most appropriate for otherapplications, and YCbCr and CIELAB are the best candidates.

The advantages and disadvantages of YCbCr and CIELAB are the following :

• YCbCr:Advantages: well known and widespread, consistent with videotelephony, videotex and other ITU applications.Disadvantages: not well defined, dependent on the gamma properties of display screens, possible conversion

problems between color spaces.

• CIELAB:Advantages: uniform space, more accurate representation of color, supported by ISO and ODA addendum.Disadvantages: less widespread, not compatible with other ITU applications.



It was agreed that the choice between these color spaces depended on the applications aimed at for color facsimile.However, considering the first step for a Recommendation, the following resolution was adopted (CF3-13):

1. Performances objectives:- continuous-tone color images- 64 KBit/s- at 200 dpi: about 1 min/A4 page or less- lossy, no color calibration

2. Most people think as follows:- Luminance-Chrominance separate signal is necessary- YCbCr and CIELAB are two candidates. Most people think YCbCr is preferable, in order to be consistent with

other applications.- We propose YCbCr as mandatory, and CIELAB and other color spaces as options.- Some delegates think this proposal is premature.

MARKET SEGMENTS

During the discussion about the choice of the color space, it appeared that the choice depended on the aimedapplications. Four market segments were defined, and four different kinds of terminals that could be derived fromthese segments.

The following resolution was adopted for the market segments (CF3-12):

1. Consumer/BusinessEx.: Desktop Publishingdoes not calibrate display/printer100-600 dpi printersYCbCr (for backward capability) mandatory

2. ProfessionalEx.: Low end graphics artscalibrates display/printer300-1000 dpi printersYCbCr mandatory + CIELAB (for calibration) optional immediately

3. Dedicated publishing businessEx.: high end graphics artsCMY(K) used most often600-1800 dpi printersYCbCr still mandatory and RGB, CMY(K), CIELAB, CIELUV are all options

4. Highest quality> 2000 dpi

(Note: typical printers have bi-level values)

Categories 1 and 2 are "standardization now". Categories 3 and 4 are "be prepared to standardize on demand."

JPEG CODING PARAMETERS

DEFAULT HUFFMAN TABLES

The use of fixed tables (for Huffman coding) simplifies implementation. However, the efficiency of the coding isreduced (30 to 40%) when there is a significant change in image type, source or resolution. It was also stated that itis difficult to define these fixed tables, which depend on the kinds of documents and the nature of the source.



The transmission of the tables associated with each document solve the problem, and most delegates were in favor ofthis solution. However, it may complicate the implementation of the terminal (Huffman "tree" in the decoder).Therefore no agreement was reached, and this subject was added to the "open issue" list. Studies are encouraged formaking fixed tables in different resolutions and kinds of documents.

QUANTIZATION TABLES

The quantization tables have a great influence on the compression ratio. Their size (64 bytes/table) is very small bycomparison with the data to transmit. The following resolution was adopted (CF3-20):

• Compression and quality sensitive, thus use the right table! More sensitive than Huffman tables

• To allow (decoder) for all 4 tables (as in baseline) for the future when CMY(K) is also transmitted

• Download tables with data for all images (size small = 64/table) - maybe later define default (when moreexperience gathered)

• 16 bit tables for 12 bit/component input should be allowed

• Guidelines/example tables should be in the standard

• Some examples for tables can be found: CCITT photovideotex draft; JPEG 08/91 IBM RGB experiment tables

ENTROPY CODING

An alternative to solve the above-mentioned problem of the default Huffman tables should be to use arithmeticcoding rather than Huffman coding. The advantages and disadvantages of the two methods are as follows:

Huffman coding:Advantages: Well known codingDisadvantages: Not suitable for mixed mode documents (e.g., text + photo)Requires 2 passes to encode when custom tables are used.

Arithmetic coding:Advantages: More efficient (10 % with 1 bit/pel coding)Disadvantages: Is not in the baseline system.

By comparison with G3 terminals where only basic requirements are mandatory, and where, however, options areused by most terminals, the following resolution was adopted (CF3-16):

• Baseline Huffman coding should be mandatory (in decoder)• Arithmetic coding should be optional (in encoder/decoder)

SUBSAMPLING

Concerning subsampling, it was considered as necessary to provide subsampling capability in order, for example, toinsure compatibility with photovideotex or existing data-bases.

Therefore, the following resolution was adopted (CF3-14):

1 - 1:1:1 (no subsampling) is mandatory

2 - 2:1:1 (horizontal only) is mandatory4:2:2 spatial relationship is CCIR 601 (Chroma cosited with luma)

3 - 2:1:1 (horizontal), 2:1:1 (vertical) is optionalSpatial relationship is MPEG:



x x o midway between 4 samplesx x

Spatial relationship of components

CCIR 601 (Chroma cosited with luma)1/4 1/2 1/4

x x x x x

x x x x x

Quicktime, Postscript, TIFF, etc1/2 1/2

x o x x o xx o x x o x

MPEG: x x o x x

where x = luminanceo = chrominance

IMAGE RESOLUTION

The resolution to be used for color facsimile is one of the most difficult problems to solve. It is likely thatperipherals (scanners, printers, display) with different resolutions will exist on the sending and receiving side. Inthis case, for example, it is not obvious to state whether conversion must be performed on the sending side or on thereceiving side. It may depend on two different priorities:

• Transmission time• Throughput efficiency

The problem of the description of the scale changes was also raised; some guide-lines should be given to themanufacturers.

This item requires more study and the following resolution was agreed (CF3-17):

• Resolution of images means "resolution" at the transmission line, but not necessarily at a given output/inputdevice.

• Probably more than one resolution will be required to be standardized.• In order to minimize transmission time, encoder should optimize the resolution of the image to be transmitted.• Decoder should be "intelligent" enough to do the necessary scaling of transmitted image for the physical

rendering for the printer. The degree of scaling should be kept within reasonable limits (to be determined).• Printer would have square (or nearly square) pixels. Source of images, however, do not always have square

pixels:a) scanner - square pixelsb) video camera - "not square" pixelsc) display generated - "not square" pixels

• The "CCITT Photovideotex" standard should be studied (and if found useful, parts should be taken over).• Further study and experiments on this issue are needed.

INTERLEAVE

The use of interleave, by block or component, mainly depends on the peripherals' operating mode. For example:



• If a printer needs three components simultaneously (ink jet type):block interleave is needed.

• If a printer needs all data per component (thermal transfer type):component interleave is needed.

Other parameters (such as the necessary color spaces changes, the presence or not of buffers) may also influencechoice.

Because of lack of expertise, this point was added to the "open issue" list. The following resolution was agreed(CF3-18):

• No dedicated "color-facsimile only" printers are envisaged.• Some printers will only need the grey-scale component (Y) (i.e., conversion to binary or grey only). Thus, Y

component may be first (sometimes)?• Scanners,' cameras' and printers' characteristics have to be taken into account.• Color space for scanning and printing (RGB or CMY(K)) is different from the color space of transmission

(Luminance, Chrominance).• Block interleave looks desirable if color conversion is expected (i.e. YCbCr or CIELAB to CMY(K)).

Component interleave is likely to be natural in the future, when CMY(K) is transmitted. We might considerdefining "block interleave" as mandatory and allowing "component interleave" as an option.

• Note: Lossless transcoding may allow the encoder to present the compressed data to the decoder in the preferredmethod.

• Minimum buffer-size should be considered.• Is component interleave really needed?

LOSSLESS CODING

Due to the fact that lossy coding only is present in the baseline system of JPEG, the following resolution wasadopted (CF3-19):

JPEG lossless coding is optional.

DATA PRECISION

8 bits/component is the basic requirement in JPEG. However, higher precision may be needed, for example forlossless and medical images. The following resolution was adopted (CF3-19):

• DCT-based coding requires 8 bits/comp.• 12 bits/comp DCT-based coding is optional.• Optional lossless JPEG decoding internal data expression is 2-16 bits. Presentation is terminal user

responsibility.

DOCUMENT LAYOUT

If one assumes that color facsimile is an option for Group 4, and that the first step takes into account a full page, themost simple solution is to follow the classes and structure of Group 4 for the different steps, and take into accountthe parameters coding from ODA color addendum. The following resolution was accepted (CF3-22):

• First step: full page using ODA addendum color according to G4 class 1• Intermediate step: pixels stripes using more than one coding (JPEG, JBIG, MMR)• Future: mixed mode (according to G4 class 3)

PICTURE BUILD-UP

Sequential mode is the basic mode in JPEG. It seems natural to be used for facsimile with a printer. However, someapplications (with display) may require progressive mode. The following resolution was agreed upon (CF3-24):



• Sequential build-up should be mandatory• It should be easy to implement, but should perform well• Assumption: progressive build-up will be needed in the future• Study items:

a) Should progressive build-up be an option now?b) How to use progressive build-up?

• "Progressive" means:a) "progressive" as in JPEG draft (DIS 10918)b) "hierarchical" as in JPEG draft (DIS 10918)

PROTOCOLS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

The document CF3-4 was discussed as a first definition of the protocol to be used for color G4 facsimile. In thisproposal, color facsimile is considered an option to Group 4 class 1. The source of this document is the new annex(1990) from T.563, modified to take into account the new parameters necessary for color. The ODA coloraddendum has been used, with some additions (subsampling, JPEG and JBIG features).

It was not decided whether the ODA color addendum had to take into account, in a general case, the amendmentsnecessary for color facsimile.

The list of the CCITT Recommendations, where modifications will be necessary to introduce color in Group 4facsimile (classes 1-3) will be found in Annex 2. The main modifications concern Recommendation T.503(Document Application Profile for group 4 class 1).

The document CF3-4 only concerns the protocol coding, and the need for a "clear" document describing therequirements for color facsimile. The following resolution was adopted (CF3-27):

The group recognized that document CF3-4 represents a great deal of good work. The group found manyadditional items to consider, however, and so chose to postpone accepting the content of this document as adefinition of G4 color facsimile protocol until a future time.

The associate Rapporteur group for G4 color facsimile began work toward developing a functional requirementspecification which could be used as the basis for a future set of Draft Recommendations and/orRecommendations revisions for both G3 and G4 color facsimile.

OPEN ISSUES TO RESOLVE FOR JPEG

To summarize, many decisions or choices were made, indicated in the "Resolutions". However, some subjects couldnot be resolved, often due to lack of expertise or experiments. The "open issues" are (CF3-23):

1. Must pixel aspect ratio on transmission line always be square?2. Has transmission time priority over throughput time?3. Are "custom tables" download + processing for custom Huffman always required (mandatory in every decoder)?4. What would be "good" default Huffman tables, and do we need them?5. Report on the "state of the art" of color and grey scale printing is needed. Then the issue of interface can be

decided.6. Are quantization tables different for display and printers?7. Are there default "quantization tables"? Experiments/decision needed.8. Should example quantization tables be a function of resolution in the standard?

resolution <-?-> table optimization9. For the future: No experience with CMY(K) tables exist.10. Should 4 custom Huffman tables in 1 scan be an option? (for future CMY(K) use)11. To study:

a) Should progressive image build-up be an option now?b) How to use progressive build-up?



OPEN ISSUES TO RESOLVE FOR JBIG

JBIG was discussed briefly. The following open issues (CF3-28) need further study:

1. # of bitplanes2. Support of AT (Adaptive Template) and range of M3. Support of TPB (Typical Prediction for Base layer)4. 2 templates for lowest resolution layer5. Support of differential layer

- Progressive compatible SEQ (Sequential)- SEQ without differential layer

6. Support of TPD (Typical Prediction for Differential layer)7. Support of DPPRIV (Private Deterministic Prediction Table)

Additional "open issues" raised:

8. How to use bit plane under ODA expression?9. Coding of single bit color images10. Interleave issues (in JPEG/JBIG)11. Precision differences in color12. One stripe for one page13. How many colors are allowed in ODA?14. Marker codes (in JPEG/JBIG) for error recovery and parallel processing

EDITING OF RECOMMENDATION

The proposed draft CCITT photovideotex recommendation was suggested as an example for incorporating JPEG ina given application.

The next meeting will be held in October, 1991 in Geneva during the SG VIII meeting. Mr. Matsuki will consult thespecial Rapporteur for having another meeting.

G. Boulay, France Télécom (SEPT)



COLOR GROUP 4 FACSIMILE EXPERT GROUP ROSTER,AUGUST 26-30, 1991, S ANTA CLARA, CA

Makoto Matsuki (NTT Hum. Int. Labs, Japan) Associate RapporteurHost: C-CUBE Microsystems

ACTION Consulting Ken KrechmerAlcatel SEL Germany Horst HampelAutograph INTL Inc Jorgen VaabenC-CUBE Microsys. Eric HamiltonCanon Inc. Tadashi YoshidaCanon Inc. Katsutoshi HisadaCompression Tech. Robert WidergenCPgD TELEBRAS Gildo Confortin

BrazilDELTA Info. Systems Stephen UrbanFrance Télécom/SEPT Gérard BoulayHewlett-Packard Charles RosenbergIBM Almaden Res. Ron ArpsIBM Corporation Charles TouchtonIBM Corporation Joan Mitchell

Industrial Technology Passaro AldoInstituto Superiore Giuseppe Rinaldo

PT(Italy)Korea Academy of Chang-Beom AhnMitsubishi Electric Fumitaka OnoNEC Corporation Takao OmachiSIEMENS AG Istvan SebestyenSIP (Italy) Stefano MarianiSTORM Technology Adriaan LigtenbergTelefonica Pablo CalvoToshiba America Mike FewWANG Labs Manoj MunjalZoran Corp. Cole EerskineZoran Microelec LTD Aharon Gill

REPORT OF TR-45.2 INTERSYSTEM OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEAUGUST 26-29, 1991, PORTLAND, OREGON

OPENING PLENARY

LIAISON REPORTS

CTIAG. Brunt (SBMS) reported that there would not be an August issue of the Cellular Technology Report from theCTIA. He gave updates on the three major projects before the CTIA Network Evolution Subcommittee.

Chairmanship of the Calling Party Pays project (study technical problems re: ability to bill original caller) has beentransferred to PacTel.

A numbering plan requesting non-geographic area codes is being prepared and will be submitted to the CTIATechnology Committee for approval. The request will then be forwarded to Bellcore.

McCaw made two presentations regarding the SS7 Intersystem Network project (goal: to study IS-41implementation). The first was a generic description of SS7, the second was a presentation on the goals, objectives,and progress of the McCaw/BellSouth SS7 field test in Florida.

Other issues under consideration are network architecture (DMH, Register placement, BS-MSC standardization,etc.) and ICCF liaison regarding the development of a matrix for ANI and ii digits.

T1S1.3J. Yu (AT&T) reported that the Message Transfer Part (MTP) been balloted by T1 and is waiting for ANSI approval.The Signaling Connection Control Part (SCCP) has been balloted and comments from T1S1 are to be resolved.Integrated Services User Part (ISUP) is out for T1 default letter ballot (a default ballot occurs after comments havebeen made to the initial letter ballot). Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) is out for T1S1 defaultletter ballot.

T1P1J. Yu reported that T1P1 has not met since the last TR-45.2 meeting. Representatives from T1P1 plan to attend theTR-45 meeting on September 6 in Orlando.



CONTRIBUTIONS SUBMITTED

"T1.114.4 Transaction Capabilities Procedures" (TR-45.2/91.8.27.2) was submitted for information only. It is adraft of the ANSI T1.114 Issue 2. "Revised NANP (North American Numbering Plan) Map" (Bellcore, TR-45.2/91.8.27.4) was also submitted for information only.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution of TR-45.2/91.5.23.1 & equal access recommendation from WG III will be carried forward again to thenext opening plenary.

There were no Trial Updates reported.

It was pointed out that J Marinho's address was incorrect on the IS-41 Rev.B (PN-2078 Mail Ballot) ballot return.The state and zip code should be: NJ, 07981-0903. A recommendation was made to send a new ballot and new duedate to all members since balloting was supposed to close August 30.

NEW BUSINESS

NEC submitted "Nippon Telephone and Telegraph contribution to the CCIR Committee April 25, 1991" (TR-45.2/91.8.29.2). This paper proposes a Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunications System (FPLMTS) networkarchitecture where the location for register for roaming subscribers is only generated in the visiting network as agateway location register in the case of inter-network roaming. It also presents some considerations to provideUniversal Personal Telecommunications (UPT) service in FPLMTS.

Northern Telecom submitted "IS-41 Compatibility Guidelines and Rules" (TR-45.2/91.8.29.3). K. Hollis(Northern) agreed to resubmit this contribution as an IS-41 ballot comment.

WORKING GROUP I - M ESSAGE ENCODING AND PROTOCOL SELECTION

AT&T and Synacom will submit a contribution on abnormal message processing at the next meeting (once TCAPbecomes available).

Two contributions were submitted to provide a definition of the term MSC-G: "Recommended process forstandardizing 'Gateway MSC' and 'Calling Party Pays' IS-41 concepts" (Northern Telecom, TR-45.2.1/91.8.26.3)and "Definition of Gateway Mobile Switching Center (MSC-G) (Ericsson, TR-45.2.1/91.8.26.4). Afterconsiderable discussion and disagreement, this item was carried forward to the next meeting.

NovAtel submitted "Clarification of Initial Value of InterSwitchCount Parameter" (NovAtel, TR-45.2.1/91.8.26.5).T. Ginter (NovAtel) agreed to attach this clarification to their IS-41 Rev.B ballot as a comment.

WORKING GROUP II - A UTOMATIC ROAMING

Authentication, Voice Privacy and Message EncryptionAdditions to section three (changes to existing transactions) of TR-45.2.2/91.8.28.4, "Authentication StrawmanDraft," were reviewed in detail.

Mobiles in Border Systems"Alternative Solution for Registration Cancellation During Call Delivery to Mobiles in Border Systems" (Synacom,TR-45.2.2/91.8.28.3) led to a general discussion of the following problems:

• Unsolicited page response• Registration cancellation before page response• IS-3-C stack of 4 mobiles (lost mobiles)• Handoff while waiting for answer• Paging mobiles in border systems



Since these problems are more complex than originally anticipated, the working group agreed to request a projectnumber from the Plenary. TR-45.2.2/91.8.28.3 also identified procedural problems regarding call delivery failuredue to no response. Since this was not part of the "mobiles in border systems," it was carried forward to the nextmeeting. "Contribution for Resolution of 'Lost Mobiles' and Unsolicited Page Response Border Cell Conditionsduring Call Delivery " (NTI, TR-45.2.2/91.8.28.5) reiterated Northern's previous solution and was carried forwardto the next meeting to be discussed in conjunction with Motorola and AT&T proposals.

TASK FORCE I, WG II - IS-41 T ESTING

"Testing Document" (NovAtel, TR-45.2.2.TG1/91.8.26.1), the revised strawman, was reviewed and revised. It wasnoted that this would test IS-53 as well as IS-41 and that the test is a high level acceptance test, not a compatibilityor conformance test.

TASK FORCE II, WG II - F RAUD MANAGEMENT

"Plan of Work for TR-45.2, WG II, TF II" (McCaw, TR-45.2.2.TF2/91.8.22.1) suggested the following three phasesfor the task force:

Phase I - Gather information elements that can be used to detect anomalous or suspicious behavior(s) (by November)Phase II - Determine impact on TR-45.2's work (by December)Phase III - Summarize findings in written report (by February '92)

"Information Elements for Fraud Detection" (McCaw, TR-45.2.2.TF2/91.8.26.2) provides a start for Phase I, above.

Assignments were made to develop contributions covering the 10 items from "Fraud Management Using NetworkBased Techniques" (Synacom/McCaw, TR-45.2.2/91.6.24.7, from the previous meeting).

WORKING GROUP III - E NHANCED HANDOFF REQUIREMENTS

Authentication & Voice PrivacyC. Ishman (Motorola) introduced section one of "Authentication Strawman Draft" (TR-45.2.3/91.8.28.3, same asTR-45.2.2/91.8.28.4) . Additions to section two (message flow diagrams) of this document were reviewed in detail.C. Ishman and J. Yu will continue to develop this document.

WORKING GROUP IV - MESSAGE ACCOUNTING

"Conceptual Strawman for Expressing Addressing Information in the Data Message Handler-Network AddressTable (NAT)" (McCaw, TR-45.2.4/91.8.28.4) was presented by R. Mechaley (McCaw) as a preface to the nextcontribution, "High Level Procedures for Data Message Handler" (McCaw, TR-45.2.4/91.8.28.5). After thiscontribution was examined, R. Mechaley agreed to continue development of high level procedures.

"Proposed DMH Message Flow Diagrams" (NovAtel, TR-45.2.4/91.8.28.6) was introduced, but since the workinggroup is studying the "J" interface only, T. Ginter (NovAtel) agreed to revise the contribution. R. Mechaley and J.Willse (Cibernet) will assist in the revision.

After discussion of "Charging Considerations for CMTSD" (Cibernet, TR-45.2.4/91.8.28.7), the working groupagreed to notify Working Group V that appropriate indication for charging purposes should be included in theCMTSD or IS-53.

WORKING GROUP V - EXCEPTIONAL TRANSACTIONS & ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT

P.J. Louis (Bellcore) suggested it would take 1 1/2 months working by conference call to develop a contribution onCalling Number Identification Presentation (CNIP) and Restriction (CNIR) (P.J. Louis is editor).

K. Carlson (Synacom) and C. Ishman (Motorola) volunteered to continue work on Call Barring Text, Selective CallScreening Features, and Mobile Station Functionality Text. A lengthy discussion regarding distinctive alerting andthe need for multiple distinctive tones or short messages followed.

"Proposed changes to the CMTSD Rev. 13 Section 3.15 Voice Confidentiality Test" (NEC, TR-45.2.5/91.8.27.3)was distributed and carried to the next meeting. It was suggested that IS-53 should be updated with respect to IS-54-B, and IS-41 should be updated accordingly.



TR-45.2 ROSTER, AUGUST 26 - 29, 1991, PORTLAND, OREGON

John Marinho (AT&T) ChairmanJames Yu (AT&T) Acting Chairman

Alcatel - SEL Joseph TurgeonAmerican Computer Bob LeslieBAMS Frank WurtzBellcore P.J. LouisBellSouth Cellular Thomas E. RichterBellSouth Telecomm Loraine BeyerCantel Watson ZanCibernet Eileen GatensCibernet John WillseCincinnati Bell Info Tony GolkaComputer Generation Paul SmithDEC Kerbey AltmannEricsson Eduardo PurielEricsson Kim VoGTE Mobile Comm Lynn A. CarlsonGTE TSI Jeff CrolliekIBM Chris BaucomIMM Gil LaVean

McCaw Cellular Rob MechaleyMCI Cathy FrazierMCI Roger GuentherMCI Daniel RikerMotorola Check IshmanMotorola Tom JoynerNEC America Stephen S. JonesNorthern Telecom Kelly HollisNovAtel Thomas GinerPacTel Huei HulliburtonPacTel Marilyn KrebsSBMS Gary BruntSharp Prem SoodSouthwestern Bell Terry WattsSynacom Kirk CarlsonTandem Telecom Sys. David SandersUS West New Vector Jeff Rhodes

The CSR Library

Copies of documents listed in boldface type can be ordered from Communications Standards Review,where not prohibited by copyright. We have a large library of standards work in process and can help youlocate other information you may need.

The next issue of Communications Standards Reviewwill be published November, 1991.

Travel Notice

Due to our attendance at the October SG VIII meeting, we will be out of the office from Friday October 11through Friday October 25.

Communications Standards Review

regularly covers the following committee meetings:

TIA (USA): TR-29 TR-41TR-30 TR-45

CCITT: SGVIII SGXVII


October, 1991 15

REPORT OF TR-45.1, CELLULAR RADIO EQUIPMENTSEPTEMBER 17, 1991, ALBANY, NEW YORK

Motorola requested (TR-45.1/91.09.17.02) that several extended protocol codes be reserved to support NAMPS(Narrow band AMPS). These codes will be added to EIA/TIA-553 Rev A as an addendum and reserved. T. Auchter(Motorola) said he would introduce this contribution to TR-45.3 to ensure that the codes would be reserved in IS-54.

TR-45.1/91.09.17.06 is draft TSB-35, Cellular Mobile Receiver Dynamic Range. The document reviews thereasons for poor operation when certain mobiles are operated in close proximity to a competitive cell site.

Two call processing proposals were reviewed for checking SID (System IDentification), one from U.S. West (TR-45.1/91.09.17.05) and one from Ericsson (TR-45.1/91.09.17.07). Discussion centered around progress that has beenmade in TR-45.3 and TR-45.2. It was agreed that concerned parties would attend TR-45.3 as this problem is veryactive in that committee.

EIA/TIA-553 Rev A will be distributed by the TIA shortly.

Authentication text is not complete for anti-fraud inclusion in the EIA/TIA-553 standard. S. Leslie (Chair, AntennaSpecialists) mentioned this text could be issued as a TSB so future generations of analog-only cellular phones canhave authentication/ESN security. Concern was raised by P. Treventi of AT&T that such a TSB would involvesignificant change. This issue will wait until the ballot response of the authentication of IS-54 Rev B before workprogresses in TR-45.1.

The Nokia proposal, TR-45.1/91.09.17.03, suggests a DTMF twist distortion requirement be added to IS-19.

A contribution from AT&T (TR-45.1/91.09.17.04) addressed the problem of a test in IS-19 Rev B. This testrequires a specific test point which is not available on a custom LSI chip being used in the field. It was requestedthat a new test be developed to avoid requiring this test point. The contribution was sent back to AT&T so the authorcan create the text to allow this test to be performed without the test point.

The CTIA certification program may go beyond the IS-19 and EIA/TIA-553 specifications. It was noted a drop testfrom five feet onto a concrete surface was required as specified in EIA-571. Further information on this is availablefrom Mr. Norwinski at the CTIA, (202) 785-0081.

Lawrence Harte, Audiovox

TR-45.1 ROSTER, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991, ALBANY, NEW YORK

Sam Leslie (Antenna Specialists) Chairman

AT&T Bell Labs Cheryl BlumAT&T Bell Labs Charles CookAT&T Bell Labs Phil TraventiAudiovox Lawrence HarteBell Atlantic Mobile Michael HabermanBellSouth Mobility Thomas RichterDept. of Defense Mike UerkvitzEricsson Walter MullerEricsson Comm. François SawyerEricsson GE Richard W. PockEricsson Radio Sys Ron BohaychukEricsson Radio Sys Barry KratzEricsson Radio Sys. Filip LindellFujitsu R. KrishnamurthiGE Corp R&D Howard L. Lester

Japan Radio Co. Mat KirimuraMCC Panasonic Carl KolodzyMcCaw Cellular David HolmesMotorola Tom AuchterMotorola Bob PichaNCS/NT Bill OldenNokia Risto JunnikkalaNokia Kimmo MyllymakiNovAtel Kechong ZhouNYNEX Mobile Com Erkin Cubukc7uPacTel Corp. Mo AlyRockwell Int'l/DCD Lucian DangSharp Prem SoodSouthwestern Bell Terry WattsTime Mgmt /Toshiba John Gabor



1991 MEETING SCHEDULES AS OF OCTOBER 9, 1991Subject to Change without Notice

T1S1 Oct 14 - 18 ---WP VIII Oct 16 - 25 GenevaTR-45.3 Oct 21 - 25 Orlando, FLWP XVII Oct 29-Nov 6 GenevaTR-29 Nov 5 - 7 Florida KeysTR-45.2 Nov 5 - 7 Phoenix, AZT1S1 Nov 4 - 8 Dallas, TX

T1E1 Nov 11 - 15 Boca Raton, FLWP XVIII Nov 11 - 22 GenevaTR-45.1 Nov 19 San Francisco, CATR-45.3 Nov 18 - 22 San Francisco, CATR-41 Dec 3 - 7 New Orleans, LATR-45.2 Dec 10 - 12 Dallas, TX

1992 MEETING SCHEDULE

TR-45.3 Jan 6 - 10 San Diego, CATR-30 Jan 13-17 ---T1S1 Jan 20 - 24 ---T1Q1 Jan 27 - 30 ---TR-29 Feb 4 - 6 Newport Bch, CAT1E1 Feb 10 - 14 Fish Camp, CAT1S1 Mar 2 - 6TR-41 Mar 9 - 13 St. Augustine, FLTR-30 Mar 16-20 ---SG VIII Apr 21-May 1---T1Q1 May 4 - 8 ---TR-29 May 5 - 7 Berkshires, MATR-30 May 11 - 15 ---T1S1 May 11 - 15 ---T1E1 May 18 - 22 Williamsburg, VASG XVII June 8-12

TR-41 June 15-19 St. Johns, NFLDTR-30 Jul 13-17 ---T1E1 Jul 19T1S1 Aug 3-7TR-29 Aug 4 - 6 Portland, ORT1Q1 Aug 9T1E1 Aug 16TR-41 Sep 14-18 Vancouver, BCTR-30 Oct 12-16 ---T1S1 Nov 1T1E1 Nov 8T1Q1 Nov 15TR-30 Dec 7-11 ---TR-41 Dec 7-11 San Jose, CA

Communications Standards Review is published about 8 times per year, within days after the latest, relatedstandards meetings. Editor: Elaine J. Baskin, Ph.D. Technical Editor: Ken Krechmer. Copyright © 1991,Communications Standards Review. All rights reserved. Copying of individual articles for distribution within anorganization is permitted. Subscriptions: $695.00 per year North America, $895.00 per year outside North America.Corporate subscriptions are available. Submit articles for consideration to: Communications Standards Review, 757Greer Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA. Tel: +1-415-856-9018. Fax: +1-415-856-6591. 12906

Documents

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEWCCITT Study Group XVII, and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have all worked to put forth technical documents that contain