Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:16:18 -0500

Let's hope you haven't opened up a Pandora's box here!

Anyway, I'll start with the ITU-T side.  The basic agreement is that the
ITU-T actually owns the standard, with IETF concurrence.  Hence conformance
should be judged against the H.248 series.  Scott Bradner, jump in here if
I've stated this wrongly.

The renumbering to H.248.1, etc. occurred when the ITU-T brought out version
2.  They realized that the version of the main protocol doesn't generally
(not at all, so far) change the validity of the packages, which were being
documented as annexes of H.248.  Rather than having to republish all the
package annexes each time the main specification acquired a new version,
they decided to make them individual recommendations.  Hence H.248.1 is the
main specification and H.248.x beyond that correspond to the old annexes.
Some more have been added since that move was taken.

Sorting out the ITU-T versions requires considerable care.  The distinction
is made on the basis of date of final approval.  Fortunately, because the
ITU-T "last call" process for v2 dragged out a bit, "v1 corrected" has a
different date (03/2002) from v2 (05/2002).  From the ITU-T point of view
the latest version obsoletes all previous ones, so that is what their web
site shows.

The other point to consider is the ITU-T "Implementor's Guide" tradition.
The Implementor's Guide accumulates known errors and corrections to the
latest version of the standard.  So when you state conformance, it should be
to a specific version of the standard, plus a specific version of the
Implementor's Guide.  I'm afraid I don't know what most people have deployed
-- perhaps others would comment, privately to me if they would like, and I
can compile the answers.  The current Implementor's Guide is always
available at no charge at the Study Group 16 web site (starting point 
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/com16/index.html).

Turning to the IETF side: the IESG has approved
draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt as an RFC, obsoleting RFC 3015.  I'm not
sure I passed this news on to the list!  Pardon me for my oversight.
Anyway, typically it will take a few months for this document to pass
through the RFC Editor's queue and be assigned an RFC number.

I will recycle version 2, fixing the missing initial characters and draft
date, then pass it to the IESG for approval.  My intention is that this will
update but not obsolete the 3015corr RFC, but I just realized that I should
put that question to the list.  Do people want two versions of Megaco to
coexist, or do they want to follow the ITU-T viewpoint and allow v2 to
obsolete v1?

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hello, 

May I ask some questions about which Megaco spec to hold on to...

For Megaco, Ietf has different documents:
Gateway Control Protocol Version 1: RFC 3015
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3015.txt?number=3015) 
draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-01.txt 
draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt)
As there is no RFC for version 2 yet, the only norm is version 1. Vendors
who implemented specifcic corrections and amendements specified in the
corrective documents are in fact not conform to the official Megaco spec, as
"it is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as work in progress." Is this interpretation correct?

Now, my second question: what about ITU-T's H.248 specifications? I
understand that RFC 3015 corresponds to H.248. But what about H.248.1,
H.248.2, etc. Are they official or just corrections and ideas for a new
official spec yet to come?

Is any vendor relying on this spec, or does everybody take the RFC 3015?

Thanks in advance,
Pascal
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: "Anil Jangam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:53:26 +0530

inline..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pascal Lambers" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

> sure I passed this news on to the list!  Pardon me for my oversight.

I think you have not. Will this draft (draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt)
be turned in to the Version 2 for the rfc3015 (Earlier drafts mention
Version 1)???

> coexist, or do they want to follow the ITU-T viewpoint and allow v2 to
I feel both the versions be available for public access. Its quite possible
that most of the people are following Version1 (not necesary though) for
their current implementation and it would be a good idea to have both the
references in hand. However I hope that any new version will always contain
a list of changes from its previous release.

/anil.

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains 
confidential information intended for a specific 
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you should 
delete this message and are hereby notified that 
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, 
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

---

From: "Anil Jangam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:53:26 +0530

inline..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pascal Lambers" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

/anil.

---

From: SHRI KUMAR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:22:56 +0000 (GMT)

Hello Tom/ Anil

But, then how H.248 (06/2000 the one that relates to
RFC 3015 or vice-versa as Tom specified) is still in
force on the ITU's site when H.248.1 (corr 03/2002)
has been superseded by H.248.1 (05/2002)?
I think creation of H.248.1 (-->.1) has changed the
lineage of the H.248 in ITU. So, is the original H.248
(ITU) going to survive this later onslaught? If yes,
how can IETF obsolete RFC3015?

Only Tom can clear this confusion.

--shri

 --- Anil Jangam <[email-masked]> wrote: >
inline..
> > date, then pass it to the IESG for approval.  My
> intention is that this
> will
> > update but not obsolete the 3015corr RFC, but I
> just realized that I
> should
> Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: SHRI KUMAR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:22:56 +0000 (GMT)

Hello Tom/ Anil

--shri

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:17:42 -0500

On the ITU site the following are all available
H.248 (06/00) [the original v1 ] labeled as "in force"
H.248.1 (03/02) [the corregenda version of v1 with IG incorporated] 
labeled as "superseded"
H.248.1 (05/02) [v2] labeled as "in force"

The "in force" status of H.248 (06/00) is erroneous but as far as I know 
that version will continue to be available. It should be labeled as 
"superseded" just as the 03/02 version is.  

Both of the H.248.1 (03/02 and 05/02) will remain available.  Even 
though 03/02 is labeled as "superseded" it will continue to be available 
and is considered to be the official "v1" as 05/02 is the official "v2". 
 The ITU only considers the most recent edition of a recommendation as 
"in force" but that does not mean that earlier editions and versions 
cannot be used.  Our negotiation procedures even allow MG and MGC to 
negotiate the use of earlier "superseded" versions.

As mentioned by Kevin, we are working with the ITU folks to have the 
version numbers (V1, V2 etc) printed on the first page of ITU 
recommendations to help make this clearer.  Officially such version 
numbers have no meaning to ITU but the version does appear in the ASN.1 
and ABNF messages.  It will be clearer when it is also printed on the 
first page of the recommendations.

It is also the convention of SG16 that all corrections in approved 
Implementors Guides also be considered part of the standard and the 
version affected is specified in the IG.  The current IG has correction 
to V1 (03/02), to V2 (05/02) and corrections that affect both. 
 Officially in the ITU these are not normative until they are included 
in a new or revised recommendation, but SG16 convention has been to 
consider them part of the standard once approved at a Study Group meeting.

Tom has explained his plans to republish these versions as RFCs for 
easier access by IETF members, but I just wanted to reply to Shri that 
it is certainly SG16's intention to have continued access to V1 and to 
considered it an available protocol that can be used and negotiated 
between MG and MGC.

SHRI KUMAR wrote:

>>>Let's hope you haven't opened up a Pandora's box
>>>      
>>>
>>here!
>>    
>>
>>>draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt as an RFC,
>>>      
>>>
>>obsoleting RFC 3015.  I'm not
>>    
>>
>>>sure I passed this news on to the list!  Pardon me
>>>      
>>>
>>for my oversight.
>>
>>>Anyway, typically it will take a few months for
>>>      
>>>
>>this document to pass
>>    
>>
>>>through the RFC Editor's queue and be assigned an
>>>      
>>>
>>RFC number.
>>    
>>
>>>I will recycle version 2, fixing the missing
>>>      
>>>
>>initial characters and draft
>>    
>>
>>>put that question to the list.  Do people want two
>>>      
>>>
>>versions of Megaco to
>>    
>>
>>>coexist, or do they want to follow the ITU-T
>>>      
>>>
>>viewpoint and allow v2 to
>>    
>>
>>>obsolete v1?
>>>
>>>      
>>>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson                     [email-masked]
Voice: +1 908.766.4463	        Mobile: +1 908.342.9595
http://www.gti.net/tla
-------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:17:42 -0500