Subject: [AVT] Re: draft-rajeshkumar-avt-sse-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:01:14 -0600

Rajesh,

I'm not sure I can completely agree with your comment:

>    ...the plan is for the mode synchronization protocol to be called
>    out in a normative annex of the ITU V.MoIP specification, with
>    reference to the applicable IETF RFC.

Again, as with some of your previous statements in the IETF AVT mailing
list, I don't believe TR-30.1 and Q11/16 have decided that this is the
approach to take, and to say "the plan is ..." is, I believe, premature.

An alternative course of action, which has also previously been used by
the IETF and ITU, is for the protocol to be defined in an ITU
recommendation and then, where the protocol is an RTP payload type, to
simply register that RTP payload type with IANA / ICANN via an IETF RFC.

Given the possible time constraints in getting V.moip consented, this
latter course of action may be preferable: V.moip could be consented by
the ITU without the time of consent being constrained by the IETF approving
an RFC. If the definitive document for the protocol were an IETF RFC, the
ITU could not consent the V.moip recommendation before the IETF approves
the RFC.

This is approaching the issue from a purely procedural aspect. There may be
other aspects, e.g., what is the "right" place for this protocol to be
defined, that may need to be considered here.

Jim Renkel
Director, Advanced Technology & System Engineering
The CommWorks, Corp., a 3Com company

Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]> on 03/14/2002 07:46:33 PM

Please respond to Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>

Sent by:  Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: draft-rajeshkumar-avt-sse-00.txt

At 12:31 AM 3/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Rajesh,
>    I will not be attending the IETF meeting since I don't have any
> funding. I would caution you (and Jim) to make it clear that TR-30.1 and
> ITU-T Q11/16 need to reach consensus on the details. Although we welcome
> input from the IETF, we do not want a communication coming from them
> telling us which solution to adopt. This would be construed as an attempt
> to bypass the consensus process in our committee. --> Les

TO: Les Brown, Chairperson, TIA TR-30.1 and Rapporteur, ITU-T Q11/16

Dear Les,
Thanks for your guidance.

I have published a few IETF documents in the past, and it is my observation
that the IETF never sends liaisons to other standards committees
recommending a particular approach to a problem, nor does it accept such
liaisons. An IETF meeting or mailing list is just individuals discussing
critical internet issues and possible solutions, and then, after
socialization over a suitable period, formalizing the solution in an RFC.

An RFC or parts of an RFC do not become binding in the ITU jurisdiction
unless explicitly called out in an approved ITU specification. At the same
time, the IETF is the recognized expert on issues related to the internet
protocol and related protocols, such as RTP. Since there is a need to
define a new MIME subtype to address RTP mode shift signaling, it necessary
to review this scheme with the IETF AVT group.

The ITU makes frequent references to IETF RFC's. In this case, the plan is
for the mode synchronization protocol to be called out in a normative annex
of the ITU V.MoIP specification, with reference to the applicable IETF RFC.

I hope this clarifies things, and my motivation. If I have been amiss in my
observations, I submit my ideas to correction.

Thanks,

Rajesh

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt