Subject: White paper on MGCP vs MEGACO - Final version

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:56:44 +0530

Hi all,
                Our sincere apologies for the wide cross-posting and
inconvenience that it may have caused.  We thought the information
   compiled in this white paper may be of interest to participants of all these
mailing lists. Hence, the wide crossposting.

  Attached with this mail is a White paper that highlights the differences
between MEGACO, the proposed protocol for control of
  Media Gateways by the Media Gateway Controllers in the desomposed Gateway
architecture, and its predecessor MGCP protocol.
  Comments are most welcome and may be sent to [email-masked].

 Regards,

Vikas Bajaj
Gateway Development Team
Hughes Software Systems Ltd.

(See attached file: MEGACOvsMGCP_v3.doc)

---

From: "Petros N. Mouchtaris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:46:15 -0500

Thanks for your paper. It looks interesting. There are things that are stated
there that I agree with and some that I disagree with. Rather than debate those
points thoug of the paper I would rather discuss the overall format. I think it
will be more useful to focus your analysis on the requirements that each
protocol support rather than the specific name of commands and formats.

I would really like to see a table that lists all the requirements that IETF
identified in the MEGACO requirements draft and check whether MEGACO and/or MGCP
supports them. I would like to see what requirements are met by neither
protocols and how important those are. I would also like to see what
requirements MEGACO supports that MGCP doesn't. This will make clearer the
reasoning for moving from MGCP to MEGACO.

Petros

[email-masked] on 11/02/99 02:26:44 AM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Petros N. Mouchtaris/Telcordia)
Subject:  White paper on MGCP vs MEGACO - Final version

Hi all,

 Regards,

Vikas Bajaj
Gateway Development Team

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:17:38 -0600

[[TomT]]  Other people have commented on this document -- my comments would
be similar.  What I would like to note is that the document was over 400
kbytes in size.  I would ask that people sending out documents take account
of the impact of their retransmission on the list server and on the host's
network.  Megaco has something like 1000 subscribers.  I myself try to limit
the files I send out over this list to at most 30 kbytes or so.

In the present case, the document was inflated because MS Word's "Enable
Fast Save" feature was activated.  Simply re-saving the file with this
feature disabled dropped the file size to 180 kb.  Given that the feature
poses a well-known security risk (people can see hidden or supposedly
deleted contents by looking at the raw file) you would do well to disable it
on your machine.

Bottom line: I suggest that long files like this one be made available on
request or by providing a URL.