Subject: [Megaco] Local and Remote For Circuits

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:13:08 -0500

I was teaching H.248 the other week, and lifted some material from H.248
Appendix A.  Naturally this required a number of corrections -- we must fix
it up -- but I was left wondering: what DO people specify in Local and
Remote for circuits.

draft-taylor-mmusic-sdp-tdm-00.txt provided a rigorous answer for TDM
circuits, but outside of NAS operation most of that wouldn't be necessary.
And it wouldn't apply to an analogue circuit, such as a POTS line.  I see an
alternative which may be acceptable within the bounds of the protocol: Local
and Remote are assumed to be provisioned for a circuit, and hence need not
be specified in making a connection.  This works right up to the point where
the circuit termination is audited, at which point the MG is supposed to
send back something.

What do people do now?  It looks to me as if we have to approve something,
even if just to be returned in audits.  draft-taylor-mmusic-sdp-tdm-00.txt
is probably part of the answer, and something has to be done for analogue.

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

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

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:22:20 -0500

One point was brought to my attention recently: Q.1950 specifies a media
type of "data" on the m= line for nx64kbs clear channel.  When I went over
the MIME type definitions in RFC 2046, I found "application/octet-stream",
which seemed to fit the requirement.  RFC 2046 does not define a top-level
type of "data".  SDP (RFC 2327) has this to say about "application" vs.
"data":

     The difference between "application" and "data" is
     that the former is a media flow such as whiteboard information, and
     the latter is bulk-data transfer such as multicasting of program
     executables which will not typically be displayed to the user.

RFC 2327 is inconsistent given that it states the intention that the medium
be a top-level MIME type, then defines "data" which is not.  (I notice the
wording is slightly different in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-03.txt, so
someone must have noticed the discrepancy.)

In any event, the bottom line is this: does Q.1950 express the real intent
of SG 11, given the distinction between the "application" and "data" media
types, or should we be submitting a contribution into San Antonio for the
Q.1950 IG? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:42 PM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B800:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local and Remote For Circuits

G'Day Tom,

Local and Remote are definately valid. At least USI and TMR and bearer
characteristics can be specified. Look at the work in SG11 Q.9 on the
ISUP CBC vertical.

Regards,
Christian