Subject: Re: H.248 Activity

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:33:07 -0500

Let me take the liberty of clarifying the situation.  In summary, the ITU-T
is bending over backwards to ensure that the IETF has its say, but my own
tactical error in delaying Last Call past December will result in a
truncated formal last call process.  I have suggestions for compensating for
that below.

First: what is being considered by SG 16?  We are taking three documents as
our starting point:
 - TD-33/2 is exactly the same as -megaco-protocol-05.txt
(MegacoH248v14.doc)
 - TD-32/2 shows the deltas between TD-33/2 and the "White Document" which
was issued in the wake of the Red Bank meeting
 - TD-49/2 is the changes summed up in my final issue scorecard -- it was
reproduced on the list in my note "Updates Submitted To ITU Based On Issue
Scorecard" sent Monday at 9:58am EST.

You will see from this list that the ITU-T is taking full account of the
discussion which has occurred on the Megaco list since the Red Bank meeting
in October.  I will mention there is no departure here from normal ITU-T
procedure -- almost every document up for decision has change documents
submitted against it.  The key point is that the change documents (i.e.
TD-32/2 and TD-49/2 plus the others submitted by Cisco, Telcordia, and
Ericsson) must be agreed at this meeting to take effect.  The truth of the
matter is that there is some last-minute horse-trading on the ground, but we
will probably close on the open issues in front of us by some time tonight.

Now regarding WG Last Call.  I have a specific agreement with Glen
Freundlich, the Rapporteur in charge of proceedings here, that any issues
resolved on the list between now and next Wednesday (effectively Tuesday
night for North Americans) can be brought in for consideration on Wednesday.
This is, of course, somewhat short of the normal Last Call period.  I
apologize for that.

What I consider a more serious matter is that the IESG Last Call must come
after the ITU-T decision, if decision does happen at this meeting.  We do
have some flexibility to meet IESG objections, depending on their nature: I
believe some divergence between the ITU-T standard (H.248) and the IETF RFC
is possible, if it relates to very specific aspects of the protocol having
to do with IP-related operation.  We also have the flexibility provided by
the ITU-T provision for an Implementor's Guide to supplement basic protocol
document.  I have further ideas if absolutely necessary, but let's worry
about them when we get there.  The main point is to reaffirm the principle
that full IETF process must be followed before the RFC goes out.

I hope this explanation helps to clarify the situation.

Tom Taylor
Chairman, Megaco WG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:54 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      H.248 Activity
>
> Scott:
>
> I have a question regarding the status of the Megaco/H.248 development
> activity in Geneva. SG16 is busily trying to "decide" the H.248 document,
> I'm told, and doing so in violation of its own procedures. It's procedures
> call for "deciding" to be based on a stable document, while the document
> before that house has changed substantively since October, and there are
> numerous contributions to change it even today.
>
> I understand that one of the key supporters of deciding the document this
> week is Tom Taylor, the chair of Megaco. Monday morning, Tom opened a
> Working Group last call on the IETF version of the document, which if any
> of the current ITU contributions are accepted differs substantively from
> the ITU document. By doing this, Tom cuts IETF review of the document out
> of the loop.
>
> I thought this was a joint development between IETF and ITU, a showcase of
> that in fact, and that the IETF would review and agree to H.248 before it
> was decided? What's going on here?
>
> Fred
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Fred Baker      | 519 Lado Drive
> IETF Chair      | Santa Barbara California 93111
> www.ietf.org    | Desk:   +1-408-526-4257
>                 | Mobile: +1-805-886-3873
>                 | FAX:    +1-413-473-2403

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:39:01 -0600

RE: H.248 ActivitySeems we ran against the fundamental principle that one
cannot have two drivers at the steering wheel. They may be both well
intentioned and right from their point of view, but will pull in different
directions. With hindsight, each driver should be left alone do their own
steering. Besides, everybody profits from intellectual competition, or we
would not have had the Internet in the first place IMHO. It's for the market
to decide...

Henry

Henry-----Original Message-----
From: Media Gateway Control (megaco)
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 7:33 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: H.248 Activity

  Let me take the liberty of clarifying the situation.  In summary, the
ITU-T is bending over backwards to ensure that the IETF has its say, but my
own tactical error in delaying Last Call past December will result in a
truncated formal last call process.  I have suggestions for compensating for
that below.

  First: what is being considered by SG 16?  We are taking three documents
as our starting point:
   - TD-33/2 is exactly the same as -megaco-protocol-05.txt
(MegacoH248v14.doc)
   - TD-32/2 shows the deltas between TD-33/2 and the "White Document" which
was issued in the wake of the Red Bank meeting

  Tom Taylor
  Chairman, Megaco WG

    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Fred Baker [SMTP:[email-masked]]
    Sent:   Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:54 PM
    To:     [email-masked]
    Subject:        H.248 Activity

    Scott:

    I have a question regarding the status of the Megaco/H.248 development
    activity in Geneva. SG16 is busily trying to "decide" the H.248
document,
    I'm told, and doing so in violation of its own procedures. It's
procedures
    call for "deciding" to be based on a stable document, while the document
    before that house has changed substantively since October, and there are
    numerous contributions to change it even today.

    I understand that one of the key supporters of deciding the document
this
    week is Tom Taylor, the chair of Megaco. Monday morning, Tom opened a
    Working Group last call on the IETF version of the document, which if
any
    of the current ITU contributions are accepted differs substantively from
    the ITU document. By doing this, Tom cuts IETF review of the document
out
    of the loop.

    I thought this was a joint development between IETF and ITU, a showcase
of
    that in fact, and that the IETF would review and agree to H.248 before
it
    was decided? What's going on here?

    Fred