R:Megaco Meeting Summary

Tosco Federico Federico.Tosco at CSELT.IT
Fri Mar 31 03:40:55 EST 2000


Tom,

Thank you for the information. I take the occasion to thank you again for
your very important contribution to the cooperation between IETF and ITU-T.
Best regards.

Federico

> ----------
> Da:   Tom-PT Taylor[SMTP:taylor at NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
> Risposta a:   Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> 16
> Inviato:      venerdì 31 marzo 2000 2.37
> A:    ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Oggetto:      Megaco Meeting Summary
>
> Apologies to Alison -- I don't have her E-mail address.
>
> Megaco met for one session on Thursday morning.  The agenda included a
> review of status, a discussion of the future of work on development of
> Megaco/H.248, review of work items in progress, and review of potential
> new work items.  The main points out of the status review were that we
> must close on Last Call items within the next week to make the base
> protocol documentation available for the April IESG meeting, and that only
> MIB development remains out of the original charter work items.
>
> Discussion of how the IETF wishes to relate to future development of the
> Megaco/H.248 protocol brought out the following points:
>
>  -- painful as it has been, we wish to remain fully involved in
> development of the base protocol at every stage
>  -- leaving that aside, it is desirable for interoperability that package
> development be coordinated to minimize unnecessary proliferation
>
>  -- there was a strong consensus that in future work, ITU-T determination
> of jointly developed documents should truly indicate that these documents
> are technically stable, with rigorous change control applied thereafter to
> ensure that changes are restricted to clarifications and error
> corrections.
>
> The consensus was therefore that Megaco should continue to operate, though
> perhaps at a lower level of activity.  It will be necessary to draw up a
> new charter for the Working Group, and the Chair has been tasked with
> drawing up a process document to form the basis of a permanent agreement
> with the ITU groups with whom we cooperate.  (This document will be
> offered to the list for discussion before being passed to the AD.)  It was
> noted in later discussion that within the present organization of the
> ITU-T we will need to work with Study Group 11 as well as SG 16.
>
> A first engineer-to-engineer interoperability event is being planned,
> tentatively set for August, somewhere in North America.  Nortel will set
> up an implementor's E-mail list and web site.  We welcome any TIPHON
> initiative to develop an H.248 PICS.
>
> Notes on existing work items:
>  -- the suggestion from discussion was that each package (including those
> currently in H.248 Annex E) will be published as a separate RFC.  Megaco-
> or ITU-initiated packages will typically be standards-track, but this
> decision can be made on a per-package basis.
>
>  -- discussion of the IPPhone profile brought out the following points:
> Megaco will not initiate the development of profiles, but will typically
> become involved as technical consultants in the final stages of turning
> mature documents into Informational RFCs.  The IPPhone draft itself will
> probably be recycled once more in response to list comments, then sent to
> WG Last Call, around mid-April.
>
>  -- the NAS package work continues to be a matter both of controversy and
> of an apparently low level of general interest.  It will be fleshed out to
> meet the published Megaco requirements.  We are looking to WG Last Call in
> mid- to late April.
>
>  -- MIB work has begun to take off.  A recycled draft with a substantial
> amount of content should be available within the next couple of weeks.  We
> are looking toward WG Last Call toward the end of the month.  It was noted
> that each package will probably engender a corresponding MIB.
>
> A number of potential new work areas were reviewed.  These will be
> discussed on the list, with a view to identifying specific WG work items
> over the next month.
>
>   -- ISDN-related work should be coordinated with Study Group 11
>   -- additional packages proposed in draft-brown-supplpkgs-00.txt will be
> generic in intent, although in detail some aspects may be specific to
> North America.  The work should be coordinated with Study Group 16 in
> particular, and possibly also Study Group 11.
>
> Work on adding ATM capability to SDP is in progress.  The work is being
> taken to MMUSIC (who are prepared to supervise it -- there was a question
> of whether they would refer it back to Megaco.)
>
> A final presentation on the potential application of H.248 to the control
> of UMTS terminals included a request for help in development of the
> implied call flows.  An I-D will be submitted and can be discussed on the
> list.
>
> As a personal note, I cannot guarantee E-mail connectivity over the next
> week -- my modem does not seem to agree with most Australian telephone
> circuits.  I will be back in full operation April 8.
>
> Tom Taylor
> Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards
> E-mail: taylor at nortelnetworks.com (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
> Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961
>
>



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list