Tom,
I don't just see this as an issue of support for H.320. H.323 is a multimedia Recommendation. H.gcp needs to be able to support the full functionality of an H.323 gateway - this was certainly the sentiment of the Monterey meeting. H.gcp/Megaco needs to be flexible enough to easily handle not only the applications envisaged now but new ones that will appear in the future. The MDCP connection model provided the necessary flexibility. If the new model does not we should adopt a more generic and flexible one.
Mike
____________________ Begin Original Message ___________________________ Date: Fri Apr 9 13:56:57 -0500 1999 From: internet!NORTELNETWORKS.COM!taylor (Tom-PT Taylor) Subject: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose? To: internet!MAILBAG.INTEL.COM!ITU-SG16 Content-Type: Text Content-Length: 616
This is addressed to the experts of Study Group 16, but has impact on the priorities of work both for Megaco and for H.GCP. The question, which I raised obliquely in a previous exchange on co-location of H.245 signalling with the Media Gateway function, is whether any vendor will actually create a decomposed H.320-to-H.323 Gateway. If not, we can stop worrying about how to accommodate H.320 in the Media Gateway control protocol.
Tom Taylor E-mail: taylor@nortelnetworks.com (internally Tom-PT Taylor) Tel.: +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396-1490) FAX: same number by prior arrangement (manual answer).