Subject: SG16 Mtg: List of contributions for the Red Bank meeting

From: Nancy-M Greene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:53:14 -0400

Megacoans,

I have uploaded the following ITU-T SG16 contributions related to
Megaco/H.248 to

ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/SG16RedBank99

They will be discussed at the SG16 RedBank mtg Oct 18-22/99. Output from the
Red Bank meeting will be the SG16 "white document" which will go for
decision as an ITU standard at the Feb/2000 ITU SG 16 meeting.

A number of us active in the IETF will be also present at the SG16 meeting,
in keeping with the spirit of cooperation between the two groups, but we
also need to know your opinions. Everything decided at that meeting will put
out on this list for discussion.

If anyone of you likes or dislikes any of these contributions, please send
an email to the list ASAP, so that we know your views when we are at the
SG16 meeting. I would suggest putting the APC-xxxx number in the subject.

(* means it is not available yet)
APC-1666  Nortel and Siemens - Megaco/H.248 Generic Packages
APC-1681  Siemens AB - Identification of Gateway Protocol
APC-1688  Editor - H.323 Annex G text Conversation draft
APC-1689  Ericsson - RTP-Text for H.323 Annex G text Conversation
APC-1690  Ericsson - F.MCVS conversation service descriptor with Total
Conversation and text telephony
APC-1691  Ericcson - H.248 packages and additions for text telephony and
total conversation
APC-1692  Motorola - Using SCTP as an Alternate H.248 Transport
APC-1695  IETF Megaco WG - Megaco/H.248 Reqs - Communication from IETF
APC-1710  Lucent - Changes to H.248 to allow use in non-IP environments
APC-1711  Lucent,TechKnowWare - H.248/Megaco Structured Message Encoding
using a text line format
APC-1712  Lucent,Ericsson,Tech-Know-Ware H.248/Megaco Structured Message
Encoding using a Text Line Format
APC-1713  LM Ericsson H.248 Line Encoding
> APC-1714   LM Ericsson H.248 IANA consideration for Package extension
> APC-1715   LM Ericsson H.248 Signal Direction
> APC-1716   LM Ericsson Cause Handling in H248
APC-1717   LM Ericsson H.248 Functional Outage
> APC-1718   LM Ericsson H.248 ServiceChange
> APC-1719   LM Ericsson Monitoring in H248
> APC-1720   LM Ericsson H.248 Event Enhancements
> APC-1721   LM Ericsson H.248 Multiple Virtual MG Enhancements
*APC-1735   Editors (John Segers, Brian Rosen) Draft H.248
> APC-1736   FORE Systems H.248 Transport for ATM
> * APC-1743   Q.14 Rapporteur Resolving References to IETF Documents in
> H.248
>
>
ALL the SG16 Red Bank contributions are available at
ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/

Nancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy M. Greene
Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks
T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy M. Greene
Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks
T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:[email-masked]

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:08:19 -0400

Nancy suggested I answer this on the list because other people may be
confused.  The essential point is that at the ITU there is a distinction
between the document as it existed at a certain stage of approval, the
official editor's draft, and contributions to meetings.

H.248 was "Determined" in Santiago.  Anyone who wants to argue that it has
changed too much and requires redetermination (roughly the equivalent of
recycling a Proposed Standard) will argue on the basis of changes since the
Santiago output document.  If such an argument is mounted in February, it
will set official ITU approval of the standard back by about six months.  I
trust this won't happen.

Next we come to deltas since Berlin.  The official editor's draft going into
Redbank is in APC-1735; it should correspond to the Megaco V11 draft.  At
the Redbank meeting there will have to be approval of the deltas between
APC-1735 and the draft coming out of the Berlin meeting.

Finally, there are the contributions suggesting further changes to the
document.  There are 26 of them; Nancy and I are preparing summaries to
present to the Megaco list for consideration before the meeting.  Each of
these has to be discussed in Redbank and adopted, accepted with
modifications, or rejected.  APC-1718 is one example of such a contribution.
It will be helpful if we can get some guidance from the list beforehand, so
that those of us going to Redbank can be more fully informed about the
issues involved in these contributions.

The output from Redbank will be the "white document" for H.248.  This is
translated into various languages and sent to all the member countries of
the ITU-T for approval.  The results of the balloting (which may include
requests for modification, not that I've ever seen that happen) go to the SG
16 meeting in February.  It is also possible to pass further changes to
H.248 into that meeting, but in principle these should only be editorial in
nature.

Whether we're in shape to meet the deadlines imposed by this process is a
really good question.  The basic protocol document is in good shape, but we
have a lot of work to do on packages.  I am hoping that the basic package
editors are working on a new draft in line with the results of our
conference calls, that they can make available as a Temporary Document (TD)
between now and Monday as a basis for further work.

                 ----------
>       From:   Chuong Nguyen[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>       Sent:   Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:13 AM
>       To:     Greene, Nancy-M [CAR:5N10:EXCH]
>       Subject:        Re: SG16 Mtg: List of contributions for the Red Bank
> meeting
>
>       Nancy
>
>       How do the followings lineup with V11.
>       For example I was reading APC-1718 ServiceChange.  It refers to V4.
>       What happens when V11 has ServiceChange Reasons defined that is not
> in the APC?
>       Do the Reasons defined in V11 has to get approval by means of APC
> 1718?
>
>       I am confused about how APC vs draft work.  That is what kind of
> changes to V11 has to be through APC?
>       Or all changes to V11 has to be through APC?
>       If the APC gets approval, does it mean that it will be incorporated
> into V11?
>       Anything changes that were discussed on the List but is not in any
> APC, will not get incorporated to V11.
>       Is this true?
>
>       Thanks
>       Chuong
>
>
>       Nancy-M Greene wrote:
>
>               Megacoans,
>
>       --
>         Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet:
> [email-masked]
>         1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    (972)
> 519-4613
>         **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****
>
>

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:10:53 -0400

At 02:08 PM 10/13/99 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

...snip...

>H.248 into that meeting, but in principle these should only be editorial in
FYI,
Based on what happened in Santiago (e.g., H.323 Annex E, Annex G), the
definition of "editorial" is whatever SG16 agrees is editorial.  There
doesn't seem to be a hard and fast definition.

Therefore, don't assume that what comes out of the next SG16 in Geneva will
contain minor changes from the white paper.  In other words, how's Geneva
in February?
...snip...
Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------