Subject: RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?

From: Padmaja Musti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:19:35 +0530

Hi,
I think in the previous Interops there was confusion on the implementation
of TPKT /RFC1006
and there was suggestion that 4 byte TPKT header should be used instead of
RFC1006.
But this is not mentioned in the IG Jun 2001. Was it omitted inadvertently.
For the coming Interop should every one come with 4 byte TPKT header or
RFC1006 implementation.
regards,
Padma

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:18 PM
To: 'Padmaja Musti'; 'Harry Suede'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?

It should conform to the "practical definition", since that includes
solutions to problems which have arisen in porevious interops.

-----Original Message-----
From: Padmaja Musti [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:29 AM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B881:EXCH]; 'Harry Suede'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?

Hi,
For the coming Interop are we saying that MG/MGC should conform to Formal 
definiton or practical definition (with IG)?
 
regards,
Padma

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:04 PM
To: 'Harry Suede'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?

I'll give you two answers: the practical one, and the formal one. 

The practical answer is that Version 1 consists of the protocol as
documented in RFC 3015 or ITU-T Rec. H.248 (June, 2000) plus the latest
approved H.248 Implementor's Guide (June, 2001).  Note that RFC 3015 has a
few small errors compared with the H.248 document.  The URL you cite
probably gives the June 2001 approved version of the IG, but for safety you
should get the official version, just posted last week, at 

http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com16/implgd/h248-ig.html
<http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com16/implgd/h248-ig.html>  

The formal answer is that because the IETF lacks the equivalent to the ITU
Implementor's Guide, RFC 3015 is the official IETF view of Version 1.
Normally we would recycle that document in a movement toward Draft Standard,
so you would have an Internet Draft containing the latest view of the
protocol including corrections.  The problem is that we don't want to risk
divergence between Megaco and H.248, so the more likely update route will be
to co-develop the next version of the H.248 Recommendation with SG 16.
Discussion of this topic at the last IETF meeting revealed a fairly clear
consensus that Megaco participants don't want to see another version of
Megaco/H.248 for another year, until we get solid deployment experience.  If
this is also the list consensus, I can report this view into the next SG 16
Rapporteur's meeting at the end of the month.

I am left with one thought.  Should we have an I-D on the table consisting
of RFC 3015 plus approved corrections (i.e.) the latest approved version of
the Implementor's Guide?

-----Original Message----- 
From: Harry Suede [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:16 AM 
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ? 

Hi All 

 I am a bit unsure about what exactly constitutes 'Version 1' of the MEGACO
protocol. 
Is it just the RFC 3015 ? Or do the subsequent IGs also form a part of it. 

 RFC 3015 was itself made up of megaco_merged_01.txt and IGv3, right ? 

 Is the document located at 
ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0105_Por/PL-015_H248_imp_guide.zip
<ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0105_Por/PL-015_H248_imp_guide.zip> ,
the  the latest approved IG ? Where does this doc stand vis-a-vis 'Version
1' ?

 Could someone please clarify ? 

Regards 
Harry 

-- 

_______________________________________________ 
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143
<http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143>  

_______________________________________________ 
Megaco mailing list 
[email-masked] 
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>

---

From: "Paul Long" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:10:29 -0500

RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?Padma,

I'm confused. What do you mean by "4 byte TPKT header ... instead of
RFC1006." Section 6 in RFC1006 has always defined a 4-byte header for TPKT.

Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Padmaja Musti
  Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:50 AM
  To: 'Tom-PT Taylor'; Padmaja Musti; 'Harry Suede'; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [Megaco] What exactly constitutes Version 1 ?

  Hi,
  I think in the previous Interops there was confusion on the implementation
of TPKT /RFC1006
  and there was suggestion that 4 byte TPKT header should be used instead of
RFC1006.
  But this is not mentioned in the IG Jun 2001. Was it omitted
inadvertently. For the coming Interop should every one come with 4 byte TPKT
header or RFC1006 implementation.
  regards,
  Padma