[Fwd: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin mtg)]
Christian.Groves at ERICSSON.COM
Tue Aug 10 11:28:22 EDT 1999
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 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
megaco at standards.nortelnetworks.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Text vs. Binary (was Re: Results from the ITU SG16 Berlin
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:47:52 +0200
From: Chip Sharp <chsharp at CISCO.COM>
Reply-To: Chip Sharp <chsharp at CISCO.COM>
To: MEGACO at STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM
<4.1.19990809163617.03ef1760 at dogwood.cisco.com><F033F6FEF3F1D111BD150000F8CD1431025B5F9E at zcard007.ca.norte
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
>> >support both encoding formats. MGs may support both formats."
>>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
>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
I should say "Oslo proposal".
I can say for sure that megaco has not agreed to do both a binary and
I am making a proposal. I would actually like to hear more people
their opinion about this other than the 5 to 10 people that seem to
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
I believe what Scott sent to the list was:
"The gist of the proposal is that the two groups would agree to some
double veto process where by both groups have to agree to the final
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
encoding. I'd rather have the discussion sooner than later.
So the question is, does megaco agree with the SG16 proposal to have
binary and text encoding of the protocol as described in the draft Nancy
Chip Sharp Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
More information about the sg16-avd