FW: Where H.245 goes - MG or MGC (Skran's comments)

[Christian Huitema]

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