Subject: SDP inconsistency in Megaco

From: Sophia Scoggins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:36:57 -0400

In RFC 2327 the 's', 'o', and 't' are required. In Megaco, these three
descriptors are optional from MGC --> MG. The questions are:

-- Why Megaco wants this exception? (I personally does not want these
descriptors. They offer no value to VTOA. But not compliant to another RFC
just adds on difficulty in interworking with other protocols. I would rather
the original RFC 2327 authors change them, then we create inconsistency. Of
course, this generates backward compatibility issue. But looking forward, it
is better this RFC gets updated or all the applications agree/aware of the
inconsistency.)
-- Should these descriptors in the direction of MG --> MGC be compliant to
RFC 2327 or consistant to the way they are in the direction of MGC-->MG?
-- For MGC --> MGC, they are based on other protocols, and are likely to be
compliant to RFC 2327. Should the MGC add on those descriptors and remove
them before passing them down to the MG?
-- If BICC decides to compliant to Megaco (as it is today), then for BICC
and SIP interworking, should the IWF add on these descriptors?

Other questions are for ajesh:

-- what is a MG going to do with the vci/vpi/vpci of the remote MG? Do they
offer any value? If not, they should not be in the SDP discription.

Regards, Sophia