I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-02.txt

[Matt Holdrege]

I agree with narrowing of options, but market reality means the MGC's in
most cases must support both. That's what I was referring to.

At 01:21 PM 3/3/00 -0500, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>Matt
>
>The protocol states MGCs SHOULD support both.  That is not
>a requirement.
>
>The purpose of a profile is to narrow down the breadth that the
>protocol specifies so that you can plug an MG into an MGC and you
>KNOW that they will play.  This is generally NOT the case with
>a random MG plugging into a random MGC - there are lots and lots
>of things that would make them not compatible, and still both
>be conformant to the protocol.
>
>For each and every option possible in the protocol, a well defined
>profile should specify a minimum requirement.  A conformant
>device should be able to go above the minimum.  This means in
>every profile, a choice will be made on encoding.  If this is
>not done, then a customer cannot tell by comparing the profile
>of an MG whether it will be compatible with his MGC.  He should
>absolutely be able to do this.
>
>In this case, if an MGC advertises that it conforms to the IPPhone
>profile, but does not support text encoding, it is not out
>of compliance with either the protocol or the profile.  If you
>try to plug a binary-only IPPhone into such a system, it won't
>work.  That is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
>
>I will even go so far as to say that the minimum is also the
>preferred - even if the device can do more, the point of a profile
>is to specify a set of option choices that will allow 100%
>compatibility.  If you have a device that REQUIRES some profile x
>PLUS some feature y, then it would be better to define a new
>profile as being an extension of x to include y.
>
>Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Holdrege [mailto:holdrege at lucent.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 12:56 PM
> > To: Rosen, Brian
> > Cc: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
> > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-02.txt
> >
> >
> > If MGC's must support both text and binary, what does it hurt
> > to allow IP
> > phones to do either?
> >