Subject: Re: H.248v2 [was Re: Can MGC modify term in NULL Context ?]

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:57:05 -0500

The first point to make clear is that ITU-T "versions" are always supposed
to be backwards compatible.  From the IETF point of view, the deltas
contained in ITU-T versions correspond to extensions, clarifications, and
bug fixes to the basic protocol.

The second point is that the plan I always had in mind was that the IETF
would continue its partnership with the ITU-T.  The most obvious approach
would be to keep Megaco alive and have a continuing Megaco/SG 16
relationship.  Alternatively, with some loss of clout at the ITU-T level, we
can keep the channels of communication open on the list.  This would amount
to making the Megaco list an extension of ITU-T process.

What is fairly clear is that keeping in synch with the ITU-T is mutually
exclusive to following through on IETF process.  The ITU-T does not have the
concept of discarding of unimplemented features.  Of course, we could put a
more favourable spin on the subject by agreeing that the IETF Draft Standard
would represent a subset of the ITU-T standard.  Thus in ITU-T eyes it would
have a status similar to that of an interoperability agreement.

Tom Taylor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:00 AM
> To: Christian Groves; Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]; Scott Bradner
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: H.248v2 [was Re: Can MGC modify term in NULL Context ?]
>
>
>
>
> Christian Groves wrote:
>
> > G'Day Flemming,
> >
> > No there will be one protocol(H.248, Megaco) with 2
> versions. Version 2
> > following version 1. Version 2 work is just starting and will go
> > probably for another year thus giving "the ink" plenty of
> time to dry
> > before we have version 2 ready. No body has been from
> giving input to
> > this work.
>
> I'm having a hard time following this logic. As we gain
> experience with v1, the IETF
> presumably will want to advance it to Draft and Internet
> standard, yet meanwhile the ITU
> will work on a successor, without the involvement of the
> IETF. Thus, for all practical
> purposes, you have just declared the joint v1 protocol an
> interim ITU-T solution as they
> move along on their own with v2. Maybe our WG chair or AD can
> clarify what the point with
> the cooperation was and where that leaves Megaco v1 as
> compared to H.248v2 ?
>
> Thanks
>
>         Flemming
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards, Christian
> >
> > Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> > >
> > > The ink is barely dry on v1 and we all went through
> tremendous efforts to ensure that
> > > the IETF and ITU-T would develop a single protocol. Am I
> to understand it was a wasted
> > > effort as there now will be two protocols after all ?
> Where does this leave Megaco ?
> > >
> > > -- Flemming
> > >
> > > Christian Groves wrote:
> > >
> > > > G'Day Flemming,
> > > >
> > > > Its the version after H.248v1 and SG16 are working on it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers, Christian
> > > >
> > > > Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Question for clarification here:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly what is H.248v2 and who is working on it ?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Flemming
> > > > >
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Flemming Andreasen
> Cisco Systems
>
>
>