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

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:33:37 -0400

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

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]]
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, 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 

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

---

From: Glen Freundlich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:20:55 -0600

Tom,

I only recall one or two people stating any opposition to a new version
of Megaco/H.248 (and if I review your notes, I find only one person
stating opposition, two people stating support) - was that really a
clear consensus?

"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."

Glen

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

> 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
>
> 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
> 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?
>
>  I am a bit unsure about what exactly constitutes 'Version 1' of the
> MEGACO protocol.
> 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' ?
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:58:17 +1000

G'Day Tom,

I don't believe that the meeting report from the IETF indicated there
was any consensus to not to progress the work on H.248v2. Certainly I am
in favour in getting out an updated version (and I am part of the list)
that contains the IG and some small additions. It will be cleaner and
more complete than v1.

Christian

Glen Freundlich wrote:
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I only recall one or two people stating any opposition to a new
> version of Megaco/H.248 (and if I review your notes, I find only one
> person stating opposition, two people stating support) - was that
> really a clear consensus?
> 
> 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."
> 
> Glen
> 
> 
> Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > tp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0105_Por/PL-015_H248_imp_guide.zip,