FYI for SG16, a part of a thread on the outcome of Berlin. As this issue affects both SG16 and MEGACO I ask that people cross post their responses to both SG16 and MEGACO lists. ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com megaco@standards.nortelnetworks.com Christian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:47:52 +0200 From: Chip Sharp <chsharp@CISCO.COM> Reply-To: Chip Sharp <chsharp@CISCO.COM> To: MEGACO@STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM References: <4.1.19990809163617.03ef1760@dogwood.cisco.com><F033F6FEF3F1D111BD150000F8CD1431025B5F9E@zcard007.ca.norte l.com> At 05:09 PM 8/9/99 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote:

At 05:56 PM 8/9/99 +0200, Chip Sharp wrote:

...

At 10:20 PM 8/8/99 -0400, Nancy-M Greene wrote:

...

It is expected that industry forums would define profile for use of H.248 and this would include whether text vs binary is used, as well as which packages would be used, etc. In Section 6.3.4, sentences added: "MGCs should support both encoding formats. MGs may support both formats."

...snip...

I propose that megaco should continue with its Oslo agreement and concentrate on the text encoding. Therefore, the IETF document would contain the text version of the protocol but not the binary version. Since the parameter encoding is so tightly bound with the encoding, the IETF version would specify the SDP encoding of parameters but not the other proposal.

As has been noted here several times, MEGACO did not in any way agree to use text. A coin was flipped at an ad hoc meeting and the issue was not discussed during the main meeting.

As Tom has pointed out, it is up to the megaco WG chair to declare consensus. I should say "Oslo proposal". I can say for sure that megaco has not agreed to do both a binary and text encoding. I am making a proposal. I would actually like to hear more people venture their opinion about this other than the 5 to 10 people that seem to create most of the mail on this list.

One thing we agreed on at least from the AD/Chair level was that MEGACO would pen the requirements in cooperation with SG16 and SG16 would pen the protocol in cooperation with MEGACO. I see no reason we can't continue with that method.

I believe what Scott sent to the list was: "The gist of the proposal is that the two groups would agree to some form of double veto process where by both groups have to agree to the final wording for the protocol before either group would publish it." I haven't heard anything further. This may seem rather abrupt after the SG16 meeting, but it has to be addressed as to whether or not megaco will agree to both a binary and text encoding. I'd rather have the discussion sooner than later. So the question is, does megaco agree with the SG16 proposal to have both a binary and text encoding of the protocol as described in the draft Nancy mentioned? Chip -------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp Consulting Engineering Cisco Systems Telco Bio-region Reality - Love it or Leave it. --------------------------------------------------