Subject: Proposed ADELAIDE Agenda (revised)

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:32:03 -0600

Discussion here in Adelaide and review of activity on the list has suggested
that we need to spend less time on the base protocol document and more on
looking forward.  To that end, here is a revised proposal for the meeting
agenda tomorrow morning.

Broad outline:

09:00 - 09:05 Agenda bashing
09:05 - 09:15 Status review (Taylor, Bilalis, Blatherwick?)
09:15 - 09:45 Looking forward (detailed list of issues below) (Taylor)
09:45 - 09:55 Interoperability plans (Rosen, Taylor)
09:55 - 10:25 Current work
    draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-02.txt        (Blatherwick)
    draft-ietf-megaco-naspkg-00.txt         (Taylor)
    draft-ietf-megaco-R2package-00.txt   (??)
    draft-ietf-megaco-mib-00.txt              (Holdrege, Brown)
10:25-10:50 Potential future work
    draft-brown-supplpkgs-00.txt               (Brown)
    draft-bouwen-megaco-isdn-00.txt         (Van Doorselaer)
    draft [ATM]
    draft-ricagni-megaco-umts-all-ip-00.txt  (Ricagni)
    Other suggestions?
10:50-11:30 Review of proposed corrections to base document       (Taylor)

Issues looking forward:

(1) Base protocol evolution:
   -- what process for IETF participation?
   -- what does the IETF publish?
   -- do we apply IETF process to take Megaco v1 to Draft Standard?

(2) Packages:
   -- what track?  Decision on per-case basis?
   -- what process for publishing ITU-generated packages?
   -- what process for creating IETF-generated packages?

(3) Profiles:
   -- who creates?
   -- registration process?

Bottom line: does IETF wish to continue to participate in Megaco/H.248
development?  If so, should Megaco continue to exist, should offshoot WGs be
constituted as needed, or should everything be handled at the IESG level?

Tom Taylor
Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards
E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:18:37 -0600

Tom,

It is still a little unclear to me what MEGACO WG intends to do with
those H.248 Annexes (determined by ITU). The one I am  especially
interested in is Annex H (using SCTP as the alternative transport). I
and the other authors of that Annex has proposed to make it an
informational RFC in IETF. Should this be mentioned at the meeting?

regards,
-Qiaobing

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:03:22 +1000

G'Day Tom,

Can we discuss draft-ricagni-megaco-umts-all-ip-00.txt as it didn't make
the submission deadline (it came on Monday) and its the first we've seen
this topic?

Cheers, Christian