Subject: [Megaco] (no subject)

From: "Milton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:28:22 +0530

Dear All,

We all have seen the mail from Kevin that says: “IETF IS NOT INTERESTED IN
STANDARDIZING ANY PACKAGES”. He also said … I am quoting him:
“Given that the working group is in the process of winding down, I do not
see
any benefit to anyone in continuing to allow the IETF to hold up
standardization when the ITU is prepared to consider and advance the work.”

Although his comments ring true but his conclusion is frustrating. First and
foremost question is why you people have decided to “WIND DOWN” the working
group?
- If your decision is motivated by the fact that ITU is going to take care
of the protocol then why did IETF join hands with ITU in the first place? If
they (ITU and IETF) want to collaborate - then this is not the way to
COLLABORATE. IETF and ITU have totally different working styles and
philosophy - IETF is more democratic and open whereas ITU is rigorous in
process. We thought we would see the best of the both worlds!!!!!

-	If you people think that you are done with Megaco then in my opinion you
are grossly wrong. A protocol is named so because it gives people a
“standardized and optimized” set of rules for “interworking”. Does Megaco as
a protocol satisfy this definition? Hardly so. Megaco base protocol gives
you a framework - to make voice over packet network a reality, different
standards are to be developed on the top of this framework. AND OFCOURSE IT
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS
(LIKE MSF) COMING UP WITH THREE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. It should be the
responsibility of these standard bodies to come up with “extensions” to the
“base protocol”  - standardizing packages give you that opportunity.
But of course, Kevin was right in saying that IETF is not “up and running”
and not working efficiently. I propose you people in IETF “MUST”(is to be
interpreted as described in RFC 2119) think again before winding up the
working group and we should think about finishing our job.

-Milton

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:47:07 -0400

Comments inline. [KJBII]

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 9:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] (no subject)

Dear All,

We all have seen the mail from Kevin that says: "IETF IS NOT INTERESTED IN
STANDARDIZING ANY PACKAGES". He also said ... I am quoting him: "Given that
the working group is in the process of winding down, I do not see any
benefit to anyone in continuing to allow the IETF to hold up standardization
when the ITU is prepared to consider and advance the work."

Although his comments ring true but his conclusion is frustrating. First and
foremost question is why you people have decided to "WIND DOWN" the working
group?

[KJBII] Closing a working group is decided by the IESG based on completion
of the goals set forth in the group charter, and the work produced by the
group. "We people" did not overtly decide to wind down the working group,
but the fact is that the WG has not produced any work of note in quite some
time.

[KJBII] IETF and ITU started to progress work on the same topic at the same
time.  Rather than end up with two competing standards, the two
organizations decided to join forces.  I believe that the resultant protocol
shows great success in that collaboration.  I believe we did see the best of
both worlds.  However, the IETF has problems with its processes --
self-acknowledged problems.  I believe these will need to be worked out
before the IETF is prepared to take on more work directly related to
H.248/Megaco.

-	If you people think that you are done with Megaco then in my opinion
you
are grossly wrong. A protocol is named so because it gives people a
"standardized and optimized" set of rules for "interworking". Does Megaco as
a protocol satisfy this definition? Hardly so. Megaco base protocol gives
you a framework - to make voice over packet network a reality, different
standards are to be developed on the top of this framework. AND OFCOURSE IT
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS
(LIKE MSF) COMING UP WITH THREE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. It should be the
responsibility of these standard bodies to come up with "extensions" to the
"base protocol"  - standardizing packages give you that opportunity. But of
course, Kevin was right in saying that IETF is not "up and running" and not
working efficiently. I propose you people in IETF "MUST"(is to be
interpreted as described in RFC 2119) think again before winding up the
working group and we should think about finishing our job.

[KJBII] I do not believe package standardization has ever been a work item
on the charter of the working group.  Therefore, package standardization has
never been in the scope of the working group, other than the courtesy of
allowing the list to comment on packages.  Note that the procedures for
developing packages do not require this courtesy.  I don't believe anybody
said that "we" are "done with Megaco".  I, personally, have several
significant work items in the ITU that will make the protocol better for
everyone.  The ITU meetings are not secret affairs, and the working
documents are available to everyone on the list via anonymous FTP.  Comments
that are raised on the list are discussed at the ITU meetings.  Note that
the list will continue, even after the WG completes at some point in the
future.  Note that the H.248 working documents will also continue to be
available to all, as well.

[KJBII] Your message uses the phrase "you people" quite a bit.  Are you not
a member of the group?  Are you not one of those involved?  Either way,
though, it is a matter of fact that the WG has not produced any work of note
in recent times, and that is one of the criterion looked at when deciding
whether or not it is worthwhile to continue a working group.

-Milton