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

From: "Pascal Lambers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:06:55 +0100

Hello, 

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

For Megaco, Ietf has different documents:
  a.. Gateway Control Protocol Version 1: RFC 3015 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3015.txt?number=3015) 
  b.. draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-01.txt
  c.. 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

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:30:32 -0500

You have a misunderstanding as to what does and does not constitute a
standard.
 
RFC 3015 is a "Proposed Standard" that outlines the original draft of the
Megaco/H.248 specification.  In accordance with the agreement between the
IETF and ITU, it is subject to the amendments contained within the
Implementors' Guide.  draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr is being pushed toward RFC
status to replace 3015.  It is identical to ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1,
02/2002 (hereafter referred to as H.248.1 v1).  draft-ietf-megaco-h248v2 is
being pushed toward RFC status as well.  It is identical to ITU-T
Recommendation H.248.1, 05/2002 (hereafter referred to as H.248.1 v2).  Both
of these will go forward as "Proposed Standards".
 
However, this only describes the status of these items as they pertain to
the IETF.  The ITU has issued both of the documents as Recommendations,
meaning that they have full weight and status as standards, as far as the
ITU is concerned.  The ITU and IETF are both widely recognized as standards
bodies that have authority to declare and retract standards as they see fit.
Megaco-H.248 work is progressed under a joint agreement between the two.
However, just because one body or the other is lagging in declaration of the
standard does not make it any less a standard.
 
One other small correction:  H.248.2 is NOT H.248 v2.  H.248.2 is what used
to be H.248 Annex F.  The annexes were renumbered to make for easier
reference.  The base spec is H.248.1 (with a version 1 and version 2) and
the annexes are H.248.2 through H.248.20 (currently).  I anticipate that we
will add H.248.21 in May.
 
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hello, 

*	Gateway Control Protocol Version 1: RFC 3015
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3015.txt?number=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
<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?

 
Thanks in advance,
Pascal

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

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:00:39 -0500

The "corr" part actually stands for "Corrigenda", not correction.  Also, the
number tag at the end of the draft-etc-etc-etc-02 means that it is the
second version of the draft-etc-etc-etc document -- not a new .  This could
be for formatting, or editorial corrections, or any of a number of other
reasons.  The draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr document is the result of merging
the Implementors' Guide changes as of February 2002 with RFC 3015.  This has
already been issued in the ITU as H.248.1 v1.  Because the changes were in
the IG, they are normative -- the corrigenda draft (and future RFC) provides
one place to reference the spec, rather than needing both the RFC and the
IG.
 
All the implementations I'm aware of are using the Corrigenda version at
minimum.
 
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:45 PM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3R90:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Ok, thanks.
 
So, if I understand this correctly, ietf's correction 2 on RFC 3015,
corresponds to some or more annexes of H.248.1. For ietf the corrections are
not yet normative (as they need to be pushed towards RFC status first), but
for ITU-T the corresponding corrections are normative.
 
What do most vendors implement then?
 
Pascal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kevin Boyle <mailto:[email-masked]>  
To: Pascal Lambers <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

 

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hello, 

 

 
Thanks in advance,
Pascal

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:00:39 -0500

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:45 PM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3R90:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Ok, thanks.

 
Pascal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kevin Boyle <mailto:[email-masked]>  
To: Pascal Lambers <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  

 

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Lambers [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hello, 

 

 
Thanks in advance,
Pascal

---

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, 

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?

Thanks in advance,
Pascal

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:20:13 -0500

Hi,

         Since both version have version negotiation in place then
it is possible for any entity to implement ether, or both versions.
Thus, in my opinion, both versions should coexist.

Thanks
         Aleks

At 02:16 AM 11/13/2002, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
...
>coexist, or do they want to follow the ITU-T viewpoint and allow v2 to
...

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:20:13 -0500

Hi,

Thanks
         Aleks

...

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:39:53 -0500

I seem to remember that the outcome was that both versions would coexist
(even in the ITU).  We are certainly operating in that capacity with regards
to such things as the IG.

At the most recent SG16 meeting, a proposal was put forth to add numeric
versioning to SG16 Recommendations (such as H.248 and H.323).  If there is
sufficient interest, I will ask that the document be uploaded to the FTP
site.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksandr Ryabin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:20 AM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hi,

         Since both version have version negotiation in place then it is
possible for any entity to implement ether, or both versions. Thus, in my
opinion, both versions should coexist.

Thanks
         Aleks

>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?
...

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:39:53 -0500

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksandr Ryabin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:20 AM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

Hi,

Thanks
         Aleks

...