Subject: Re: Proposed ADELAIDE Agenda (revised)

From: Bob Lukas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:40:34 -0800

draft-ricagni-megaco-umts-all-ip-00.txt does not appear to be available at
any of the usual places, nor is it listed in the I-D search index.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Proposed ADELAIDE Agenda (revised)
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> >
> > 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
>