On Mar 10, 8:57am, Rex Coldren wrote:

Subject: Re: FW: Where H.245 goes - MG or MGC (Skran's comments) Just to get this argument back on track...

Are we going to allow for the option of H.245 channels being opened on the MG?

Hey, we are not the protocol police... The answer to your "are we going to allow" is an unquivocal yes. You could in fact easily extend even our simplest MG-MGC protocol (SGCP) to support H.245 in the gateway, for example by declaring an "m=h245" media type in SDP. As Dave pointed out, it would be difficult then to support the fast start option, but this would definitely result in H.245 in the MG. It would also become very difficult for the MGC to keep track of the resources used by the MG.

The real question is whether the base protocol defined by Megaco should mandate autonoumous support of H.245 in each and every MG. I think that at this point, the consensus is "no." There is no need for a full support in simple telephone-only gateways, the protocol is quite heavy and also subject to rapid evolution with the definition of new media and new algorithm, and the resulting resource control is very murky.

On the other hand, there may be value in an H.245 "option", so that we don't get three vendors implementing the H.245-in-the-gateway extensions in three different ways.

-- Christian Huitema