Subject: Re: Modification of event and sig parameter ASN.1 syntax

From: "Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:07:37 -0500

MGC 2000 was a conference I attended last month.  What I was saying was that
by specifying two different encodings we have in effect created two
different protocols: MGCs of one persuasion won't talk to MGs of the other.
It's unfair of me to try to turn the clock back, but the scarcity of
binary-encoded implementations up to now gave me the very faint hope that
those wanting to do binary could be persuaded to do text instead.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuong Nguyen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEGACO] Modification of event and sig parameter ASN.1 syntax

Tom

Are you suggesting that for the interoperability testing we stick to just
text implementations or
from now on all implementations of Megaco should be in text encoded?

Has anyone implemented an MGC that supports both text and binary?

Thanks
Chuong

Tom Taylor wrote:

Do I get the impression that the ASN.1 version of Megaco is only
half-defined and you want to finish the job?  I'll remark that the
existence of both binary and text-encoded versions was deemed to be a major
threat to interoperability at MGC 2000.  I suppose
it's way too late now to try to persuade people to stick to text
implementations?

Tom Taylor

--

  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [email-masked]

  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    (972) 519-4613

  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****

---

From: Chuong Nguyen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:49:57 -0600

So are you going to suggest at the meeting that the requirement that
MGC supports both text and
binary encoding be removed?

If no, the implementation for MGC would be too complicated.
Does anybody out there plan to provide an MGC that does both text and binary
encoding?

Thanks
Chuong