Subject: Re: H.248 Activity

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:46:04 -0500

I believe that Case 2 is the only viable option.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 7:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: H.248 Activity

The situation is clear.  IETF process will be respected, and only one
protocol will be produced.  This leaves the following outlook for the
future:

Case 1: SG 16 decides H.248 at this meeting

Clearly, the IESG will have to delete the protocol milestone from the Megaco
charter.  The IESG may choose, as they have the right to do under our
agreement with the ITU-T, to publish H.248 as an Informational RFC.  There
is no particular reason not to -- the provision was negotiated so IETF
participants would not have to pay the ITU-T for a copy of the standard they
helped develop.

Case 2: SG 16 does not decide H.248 at this meeting.

In this case, the preferable outcome will be to allow the IETF to complete
its process and create a Standards-track RFC.  That in turn can be processed
into an ITU-T White Document at a Q. 14/16 Rapporteur's meeting convened for
the purpose, and eventually decided as H.248.  To allow this,

  -- SG 16 must seek to decide the document at the WTSA meeting in September
rather than the meeting proposed for June 15

  -- the IETF must complete its process well before May 15
  -- the ITU-T must schedule a Rapporteur's meeting to meet the May 15 White
Paper deadline

I can only apologize so many times, but I do regret the ill-will this
outcome is bound to generate between the two organizations, even though each
has done its best to accommodate the other.

Just in case Case 2 is what happens, I hereby rescind Last Call with the
intention that it will be declared on a document which reflects the results
of the present SG 16 meeting.   Meantime, we can still try to clean up all
we can before next Tuesday.

        Tom Taylor

---

From: Paul Sijben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:26:23 +0100

Having dropped out of MEGACO and trying to catch up with what has happened,
I am a bit surprised about this discussion.

I vidly recall a meeting in Minneapolis where it was made _very_ clear that
this work had to be finished ASAP because the industry was eagerly awaiting
this.

I get the impression from recent postings to this list that this is no
longer the case, especially from people who 8 months ago were telling me in
very clear terms over and over again that we should hurry this work up!

Why should the industry now wait with freezing this protocol?

Paul
--
Paul Sijben              Tel:+31 356874774
Lucent Technologies      Message:+31 208702874
Forward Looking Work     Fax: +31 208702874
Huizen, The Netherlands  http://voip.nl.lucent.com/~sijben (internal)

---

From: Francois Menard List Account <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:48:58 -0500

Can we vote on this?  Mine's for option two!

-=Francois=-

---

From: Stephen Terrill <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:41:55 +0100

Hi Paul,

I cannot help but agree more!  Especially in Redbank when it was clearly indicated in the list that the IETF view would be "no change" into the meeting.

I see that there is certainly an industry need, which is supported by the amount of interest in this list and in ITU-T on this topic.  My fear is that other industry forums have a need for this protocol, and if they view that the relationship between the IETF and ITU causes this to be delayed to further, then other forums might loose faith in the co-operation converging on a solution, which will result in a other forums doing their own work.  I don´t see that this will assist the industry.

It is also intersting to note that this was a suprise to me, and against my understanding of the "rough concensous" and the process as outlined by the WG-chairperson in the RedBank Meeting.

Regards,

..//Steve