Subject: Redbank Outcome

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:23:56 -0500

Well, it's almost over.  I managed to get to bed at 7:00 am this morning for
an hour and a half of sleep.  Brian Rosen and John Segers didn't have that
opportunity, and the remainder of the small band who stayed with the final
review of the protocol document throughout the night didn't bother.  Perhaps
the most difficult experience was that of our packages drafting team, Mike
Kallas and Zacharias Bilalis with Peter Blatherwick's help: they had to do
their work three times over due to our inability to settle on a consistent
model of signals and events.  The last time we sent them back to the drawing
board was at midnight last night.

I'm too tired to give a detailed analysis of what happened here just yet.
One of the potential division points was settled by making ASN.1 normative
for binary encoding, ABNF normative for text encoding, with the editors
being responsible for keeping the semantics the same for both.  This allows
each encoding to be optimized subject to the constraint of common semantics.

The proposed white document is still subject to review by the closing
plenary, which as I write is processing a massive pile of H.323-specific
work.  Until plenary review is complete, we will not know what packages will
be included in the H.248 white document.  In any event, essential packages
are still missing.  Fortunately they can be developed independently by
Megaco (while keeping Study Group 16 informed).

Our work for the immediate future is therefore as follows:

(1) Review the H.248 white document (protocol document and annexes) for
errors, major oversights, and editorial points, with a view to providing a
contribution into the February decision meeting.

(2) Create the packages necessary to complete the protocol.

(3) Create the MIB(s) called for by our charter.

As a final point, as part of the deal which settled the ASN.1-ABNF issue I
provided the following text for the meeting report.  If I stepped outside
what you consider to be the reasonable bounds of our arrangement with SG 16,
be merciful in your pushback.

---------- Begin quote -----------

Tom Taylor, Chairman of the IETF Media Gateway Control (Megaco) Working
Group, offered the following description of the anticipated process for
dealing with H.248 in the IETF:

(a) The H.248-related White Document(s) from the Redbank meeting will be
reviewed by the Working Group.  Amendments will be proposed to Study Group
16 if seen necessary to correct errors or oversights.  It is expected that
the H.248 documents will go to Working Group Last Call before the February
decision meeting.

(b) Further suggestions for amendment may result from implementation and
interoperability testing in advance of the decision meeting.

(c) In parallel with (a) and (b) the Working Group may approve documents
intended to be published as Informational RFCs describing packages
additional to those provided in H.248.  Megaco will register these packages
with IANA, but will ensure that Study Group 16 is kept informed of their
contents.

(d) When H.248 is decided, the decided document will be sent for IESG Last
Call, then published as one or more Informational RFCs.  Mr. Taylor offered
the reservation that annexes dealing solely with transport of the
Megaco/H.248 protocol over non-IP transport may be omitted as being beyond
the scope of the IETF (particularly if there is no provision to assure
MG-MGC interoperability at the transport level), unless the Working Group
requests that they be included.

(e) The IETF will probably continue to work with the ITU-T on further
development of H.248 and publication of updates to the standard.  TD-46
contains a communication to the ISOC Vice President of Standards requesting
confirmation that the IESG intends to proceed in this manner.

---------- End quote -------------

Tom Taylor
Advisor -- IPConnect Standards
E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961