Subject: [Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:53:37 -0500

I'm wondering if it is time to wind up Megaco as a formal Working Group (but
the E-mail list would remain).  The implication is that all further
standardization would be either by individual I-D or by working through
Study Group 16.  There would no longer be an official point of contact
between the latter and the IETF below the IESG level.  People might wish to
comment.

Regardless of what we decide on this point, what is a realistic timetable
for completion of our current charter items?  In particular:
  -- How close do people see the MIB to completion?
  -- If the NAS package is recycled specifically to address Christian's
point that outgoing calls require the MG to provide bearer capability
information for the MGC to use in signalling, is it ready to submit for
publication?
  -- How much more work do we need on call flow examples?

Tom Taylor
[email-masked]
Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

---

From: "Ranjith Mukundan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:57:49 +0530

Tom,

It will help to have the formal WG on for perhaps until may be end of this year as I feel this time can be used for progressing any additional packages that might be forthcoming. Progressing an individual I-D or working thru SG16 will make things on the standards-track, IMO, slower.

In fact, we could meet in March (56th IETF) and check if there is interest in augmenting the charter with not-so-heavy work items that are closely related to the existing charter work items.

I think a year's time will be good enough to have a stable set of packages with a good coverage of new device-types (user and network) that might be used in different call scenarios.

Having said that, we could decide to wind-up earlier, if we find that not many packages are forthcoming during the window of time - starting now to perhaps the 56th IETF meeting; with this note of yours serving as the first check-point.

- ranjith..

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Mon 1/6/2003 8:23 PM
To:	[email-masked]'
Cc:	
Subject:	[Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom Taylor

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

---

From: "Ranjith Mukundan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:57:49 +0530

Tom,

- ranjith..

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Mon 1/6/2003 8:23 PM
To:	[email-masked]'
Cc:	
Subject:	[Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:43:54 -0500

Actually, experience has shown that it is much FASTER to take packages
through SG16.  I'm sure there are plenty of folks around who can corroborate
that.  In fact, I am seriously considering reissuing the packages I have
authored in the ITU, where I believe that they can become Recommendations in
May.  Note that packages, with very few exceptions, have never been a work
item of the group (NAS comes to mind as an exception).

The timing disadvantage that the ITU has is that SG16 can only produce
Recommendations at full SG meetings.  These are currently scheduled for May,
February 2004 and November 2004.  The IETF process allows the IESG to
approve drafts as RFCs at any time.  So at any given moment, you'll have to
decide which body provides you the most benefit with regard to timing, if
that is your most important concern.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjith Mukundan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:5N00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom,

It will help to have the formal WG on for perhaps until may be end of this
year as I feel this time can be used for progressing any additional packages
that might be forthcoming. Progressing an individual I-D or working thru
SG16 will make things on the standards-track, IMO, slower.

In fact, we could meet in March (56th IETF) and check if there is interest
in augmenting the charter with not-so-heavy work items that are closely
related to the existing charter work items.

I think a year's time will be good enough to have a stable set of packages
with a good coverage of new device-types (user and network) that might be
used in different call scenarios.

Having said that, we could decide to wind-up earlier, if we find that not
many packages are forthcoming during the window of time - starting now to
perhaps the 56th IETF meeting; with this note of yours serving as the first
check-point.

- ranjith..

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Mon 1/6/2003 8:23 PM
To:	[email-masked]'
Cc:	
Subject:	[Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:43:54 -0500

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjith Mukundan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:5N00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom,

- ranjith..

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Mon 1/6/2003 8:23 PM
To:	[email-masked]'
Cc:	
Subject:	[Megaco] Wind-Up of Working Group?

Tom Taylor