Subject: Re: Packages Conference Call Minutes

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:59:10 -0400

> [CHG] I would guess that as part of a package registration
> process for a
> package that comes from a standards body is that it could
> have a certain
> prefix ie. ITU, ETSI, TIA etc and that when a Package name is
> registered
> it then has to point to a certain Technical recommendation or name.
Package names are used whenever you reference a package item.
Names should be short.
There is no need to have the defining body in the name.  If an MG
chooses to implement a package, it is just as legitimate if the
package definition was from Joe's Fine Packages Dot Com, or from ITU.
When it is registered, it must have a publicly available defining
document for sure.

>
> [CHG] Can you please clarify the agreement? I can see that when you
> implement a PAckage that you should implement all the properties but
> should you have to implement all the values of the property in the
> package. The example given was codec properties. I'm not sure that we
> agreed.
This is the nut of the problem.

If you don't implement all of the package, including all of the values,
what is the point of the package? - you can audit to find out what
the MG implements.  If you don't implement the whole thing then we don't
want packages, we want individual item definitions; grouping them is not
helpful.

The point of a package is if you implement it, you implement it all,
and then just looking at the package audit tells you what the MG does.
>
> [CHG] Does the latest ABNF support terminatinMode = send, receive,
> send/rec ?? It seems to be missing and should be added.
It's called "StreamMode" and is found in localControl.  It is in the
ABNF.  Mode is stream sensitive.

Brian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:40:38 +1000

Hello Brian,

I was just trying to offer some advise to IANA so that certain names are
reserved. ie. If I take out a whole lot of names starting with FORE will
FORE be very happy? It would like to see that people can't register
packages called ITUxxxx.

You raise an interesting point about the private company registered
(proprietory)
Packages. Should they have to make any private documents referenced
publically available? I'm not sure of the IETF/IANA rules here.

With regards to package name. As you've mentioned that it should be a
short
name is the 64 characters defined in the ABNF too long.

I don't agree that you should support all the values in a Package. For
example codecs (yes I know there could be a completely seperate package
but not in this example). This is a property with values. Certain
vendors will support certain sets of codecs for a given application.
Does this mean that each will have a different package name for
essentially the same application. The vendors equipment supports all
properties but may not support 1 codec out of 10 possible codecs. To me
you use the same package name - its a sign that the MG supports a group
of functionalities. If you had a different package for each grouping of
values then you have potentially 10! packages (>300000).

StreamMode - OK so long as we can also have the transmission mode=
Send/receive as defined in Annex D.

Cheers, Christian