Subject: Re: H.248/BICC discussions

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:57:57 -0400

It's not the idea that Megaco can extend SDP with MMUSIC in the loop.
It's whether the form to do this is a package.  It's probably all
in the details.

I agree that Tom's basic premise, that a Megaco sponsored standards
track RFC that defines an extension is a perfectly appropriate way
to define an extension.  The package mechanism is defined as pretty
general, and of course is useable by parties other than the IETF (as
is the SDP extension mechanism).  If we made such a decision than
anyone could come along, define a megaco package that added a media
parameter, and have the result be an extension to SDP.

Now, it's certainly true that anyone can define an extension to SDP
by just doing an IANA registration of a tag, so this isn't very much
different, it's just that doing it as a Megaco package makes the SDP
extension indirect -- is that what we want?

Consider the alternative - what we are doing now.  We are writing
an I-D, with the intention of getting it published as an MMUSIC RFC
that defines an ATM extension to SDP.  Then we have another I-D that will be
published as a Megaco RFC that defines a Megaco package using that
SDP extension.  We also have an MGCP package, but that is outside the
scope of this discussion at the moment.  Is that not a preferable way
to get the job done?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 3:29 PM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: H.248/BICC discussions
>
>
> > Well, I'm having a problem with the idea that a package can
> extend SDP.
>
> SDP is designed to be extensible - it is reasonable for other
> IETF working
> groups to suggest extensions, the mmusic WG should be in the
> loop during
> the discussions but having the group that has the best knowledge of
> what the extensions are for be in the drivers seat means it is more
> likly to get done in a reasonable period of time - mmusic can provide
> feedback if they think that the proposed extensions run
> counter to the
> SDP design goals or feel that there is a better way to do the
> function.
>
> Scott
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:59:48 +1000

G'Day Brian,

I support the idea that you're updating SDP and then writing a Package.
I gather that as the properties will be defined in a package that
they'll be able to be used by both binary and text forms of H.248. I
think that having several packages extending each as proposed by Mike
Brown is a good way of approaching things.

In the future though I don't know that people will want to go through
the effort of setting up email exploders/ writing drafts/ packages etc.
for what may amount to 2 values. A package could be a way of doing this.

Cheers, Christian

PS: What's MGCP??? ;-)