Subject: H.248 Package Coordination

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:31:55 -0500

We have a number of proposed new packages in Megaco, and I'm looking for
thoughts on the process for agreeing amongst the various interested parties
about which should become Megaco work items and which should be worked
elsewhere.  I should say that this should be a two-way street -- work
introduced elsewhere may be something Megaco wants to get into.

Currently, I suggest that interested parties take a look at the following
drafts, all available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<draft-name>

draft-bouwen-megaco-isdn-00.txt
Issues for Megaco - Sigtran Interworking in ISDN Access Gateways

draft-brown-supplpkgs-00.txt
Supplemental Packages for Megaco/H.248

Very shortly these will be joined by packages having to do with R1 and R2
signalling.  I can pass the file names along if there is interest.

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Michael A. Ramalho" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:56:51 -0400

Tom,

As discussed at the Adelaide WG meeting, I assume that you are
still working on the documentation of an agreement framework when
packages are being worked on by IETF/Megaco and other interested
standards bodies (i.e., the case of package overlap or the development
of substantially similar package functionality).

Any target date for a draft of that agreement framework?

Michael Ramalho

>signalling.  I can pass the file names along if there is interest.

Michael A. Ramalho, Ph.D.
Cisco Systems
1802 Rue de la Port
Wall Township, NJ 07719-3784
Office email: [email-masked]
Personal email: [email-masked]
Office: +1.732.449.5762
Cell: +1.732.809.0188
Pager: +1.800.365.4578

---

From: Peter Blatherwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:16:57 -0500

Tom, list:

Not sure how or where to draw the line, but as a goal I'd like to see both
IETF and ITU publish an equivalent (preferably identical) set of "starter
kit" packages, to allow construction of useful systems for PSTN interworking
and IP communication.  Both carrier and enterprise type systems should be
considered in this list.

In terms of document structure, it would be good if IETF documents could be
easily mapped to ITU ones and visa versa.  Each IETF RFC document or H.248
Annex should contain a set of packages which logically belong together, ie
we should not publish each package as a separate document (unless a single
package really captures a complete problem space) or pile large numbers of
unrelated packages together in big documents.

I strongly agree we a need a 2-way street process, where work in either IETF
or ITU can be seen and commented on by both.  I don't much care which group
takes up which items, as long as we end up with a decently rounded starter
kit strongly standardized under both.  If it becomes obvious that some
package sets are of interest to one group and not the other, perhaps this is
an indication that the particular items do not belong in the common starter
kit.

Personally, I think the package sets currently on the table make sense for
this, including the ones already in process, those listed below and the
recent R1 and R2 packages.  (Note that, as discussed at the meeting, the
Supplemental Packages doc should be broken into smaller logical pieces for
line side and trunk side.)  We may still be missing some, for example ADSI
(?) and pulse dialling.

Maybe a lot of the above is just stating the obvious.

-- Peter Blatherwick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B901:EXCH]
> Sent: 12 Apr, 2000 12:32
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      H.248 Package Coordination
>

---

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:29:19 -0500

Maybe late next week.  Closing off Last Call takes first priority, I have
several sets of minutes to complete, and I have a paper to write.  That's
besides my job.

Glad to say all of my archives were recovered from my crashed hard drive.

> From: Michael A. Ramalho [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:57 PM
> To:   Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B901:EXCH]; [email-masked]
> Subject:      Re: H.248 Package Coordination
>
> Tom,
>