Subject: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

From: Brad Steinka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:34:28 -0400

There were several RFC draft document that described various packages to
support CAS, R1, R2, BCAS, etc.
Most of these drafts have expired.

Can anyone tell me what the latest RFCs are that support CAS calls and where
they are in the standards process?

Thanks

Brad Steinka
Director - Software Engineering
734 Forest Street, Building G, Suite 100
Marlboro, Ma.   01752
Tel:  508-480-0909  x154
Email: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Web:   www.telica.com <http://www.telica.com>

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

---

From: "Michael DiGioia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:01:08 -0400

Christian,

I agree, CAS should be part of the IETF similar to the original MEGACO draft 
work that held both organizations in sync.

/mpd

>From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
>To: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>CC: Brad Steinka <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:30:01 -0400
>
>Hi Christian,
>
>Then why are these brand new revisions of drafts were just recently 
>submitted?
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-r2package-03.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-laha-megaco-cas-mntc-00.txt
>
>More over a quick look through reveals that some of the package items in 
>icas
>(ITU) the same as in r2 (IETF) up to the extent of exactly the same 
>wording.
>
>Same AVD-2316 ITU doc mentions "CAS Blocking" package in summary which
>does not seem to be defined in the document and also "conflicts" with above
>IETF "CAS Maintenance Package".
>
>There is also reference to r2 package in AVD-2316 nowhere found in ITU.
>
>Also basic CAS packages draft still available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manyfolks-megaco-caspackage-02.txt
>but it is slightly different (outdated?) from AVD-2315 ITU version you have 
>specified.
>
>The recent submission of the above drafts had lead me to believe that CAS
>work is still quite "up and running" in IETF. This is all very confusing.
>When was it decided to move the work to ITU? Could someone point me out
>to some references (in IETF) of that please?
>
>My two cents on this topic: CAS is not an isolated package and in my 
>opinion
>it would be much more productive to keep it on both channels (ITU and IETF)
>and in sync, similar to some other items done so far in H.248/MEGACO.
>What other folks think about it?
>
>Also in any case can the authors of ITU and IETF CAS related packages work
>together to come up with some kind of game plan and post it to the list to 
>avoid
>any further confusion and inconsistencies?
>
>Thanks!
>         Aleks
>
>At 07:54 PM 4/21/2003, Christian Groves wrote:
>>G'Day Brad and Karl,
>>
>>I believe the intention is to move the CAS work into the ITU. The 
>>contributions
>>containing the latest drafts can be found at:
>>ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0302_San/
>>
>>AVD-2312        MF Tone Generation and Detection Packages
>>AVD-2315        Basic CAS Packages
>>AVD-2316        International CAS Packages
>>AVD-2317        Enhanced Analog Line Packages
>>
>>Regards, Christian
>>
>>Brad Steinka wrote:
>> >

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:26:15 -0400

With all due respect, the IETF had its chance to progress these (and many
other) packages.  In the interests of the larger community, I have taken the
packages to the ITU for standardization, since the IETF does not seem
interested in standardizing any packages.

The work in the IETF is not "up and running".  The drafts published by
Hughes were published after the CAS packages were submitted to the ITU.

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.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael DiGioia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

Christian,

/mpd

>does not seem to be defined in the document and also "conflicts" with 
>above IETF "CAS Maintenance Package".
>

>specified.
>
>The recent submission of the above drafts had lead me to believe that 
>CAS work is still quite "up and running" in IETF. This is all very 
>confusing. When was it decided to move the work to ITU? Could someone 
>point me out to some references (in IETF) of that please?
>
>Also in any case can the authors of ITU and IETF CAS related packages 
>work together to come up with some kind of game plan and post it to the 
>list to avoid any further confusion and inconsistencies?
>
>Thanks!
>         Aleks
>
>> > There were several RFC draft document that described various 
>> > packages
>>to
>> > Can anyone tell me what the latest RFCs are that support CAS calls 
>> > and
>>where
>> > [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:26:15 -0400

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael DiGioia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

Christian,

/mpd

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:04:50 -0400

I see the reason to push it through ITU, but we definitely would not want to
see two, or more different packages doing the same thing published one through
IETF and another trough ITU. Thus, since MEGACO is (also) published as
IETF standard we should at least make every effort to avoid duplication of 
work.

Unfortunately not all of us have direct access (at least direct say) in ITU 
and
thus at least keeping IETF community informed on progress of MEGACO/H.248
related work would be very useful, as well as using this list for various 
discussions.
In fact AVD-2345 contains the following statement regarding H.248.mf packages:
"It was suggested that we send a liaison to the IESG and MEGACO proposing
this move and asking if this presents a problem to either of them.  Mr Boyle
will draft a liaison for our consideration.  If we do not receive an 
objection from
them we will progress these with a goal of consent in May.  The liaison 
appears
as TD-20a." Should then the r2 package also be included in same liaison?

As far as I remember "CAS packages published by Hughes" are new revisions
of the drafts that were published a long time ago (at least for r2). This 
very fact
that new revisions were published despite the CAS work moved to ITU indicates
the lack of communication.

Can I suggest to put some wording on WG charter home page regarding
each work "moved" to ITU (links to liaisons?) and maybe at least some kind
of sense of ITU schedule for that work? I know there is wording already about
IETF position related to packages, but still info would be very useful.
At least a pointer to latest up to date "packages guide" (AVD-2294) might be
sufficient and H.248 related parts from 3.1.6 "Document Status" paragraph from
AVD-2345. (BTW AVD-2294 missing info on this very CAS work as part of ITU)

In any case could you please outline an ITU schedule for CAS related packages?
What is the verdict for CAS drafts published in IETF? Are they going to be 
folded
into ITU work? I guess at least some of them (by Nortel) are? What about 
others?
Is r2 package planned to be dropped/replaced with icas?
Are there any additional ITU CAS related packages/documents not listed
in original Christian's email?
Are there any other CAS packages planned?

Thanks
         Aleks

At 05:26 PM 4/22/2003, Kevin Boyle wrote:

>other) packages.  In the interests of the larger community, I have taken 
>the packages to the ITU for standardization, since the IETF does not seem 
>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 
>From: Michael DiGioia 
>[<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
> ><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-r2package-03.txt>h 
> ttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-r2package-03.txt
> ><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manyfolks-megaco-caspackage-0> 
> >><ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/0302_San/>ftp://standard.pictel.com/ 
> avc-site/0302_San/
> >>
> >> > Email: [email-masked] 
> <<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]>
> >> > Web:   www.telica.com <<http://www.telica.com>http://www.telica.com>
> >> >
> <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco 
>
> >><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>https://www1.ietf.org/mai 
> lman/listinfo/megaco
> >
> ><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>https://www1.ietf.org/mail 
> man/listinfo/megaco
>
><http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus 
>
>
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco 
>

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:04:50 -0400

Thanks
         Aleks

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:41:40 +0530

Let me take this opportunity to present the understanding that Hughes has
on this topic.

1. It was 3 years back that Hughes first published the r2 draft. It had
created a
lot of interest on the list, so much so that it was made a formal MEGACO WG
item.

2. Hughes followed it up with the r1 package draft. This stirred a lot of
reaction and
proactive contribution from the list to make it into a generic CAS package
draft
addressing not only r1 but nearly all forms of North American CAS. This
draft
was later renamed to manyfolks CAS package draft and included the "bcas"
package.

3. There was a directive from the list to make r2 a derived package to
bcas.
Hughes entered into a dialogue with Nortel (one of the co-authors along
with Hughes
to the basic CAS package draft) to make certain modifications in bcas
package
so as to enable r2 a true derivative of bcas. It was generally agreed that
there be
yet an abstraction package "icas" which derives from "bcas" and "r2" then
derives
"icas". ( icas does in no way replace r2)

4. The "icas" package never saw the light of the day at IETF. Hughes went
ahead
and resubmitted the "r2" draft aligned as close to the already expired
"bcas" package
as possible. The "bcas" package submission was also not refreshed.

5. All of a sudden now we find that "bcas" and "icas" have found entries
into ITU
package standardization sector but not "r2". The "icas" package draft was
also never floated
to the list for any review.

6. "icas" package submitted to ITU in its present form has flaws.

Given the above background, we clearly need a charter how to move forward
on
the CAS package drafts. Hughes generally agrees that the CAS package
architecture
should follow the hierarchy "bcas"-->"icas"-->"r2" (with some changes in
the icas package
in its present form).

It is to be noted that content-wise whatever is there in the latest r2
package draft submitted to IETF
is authentic and requires no modification. An alignment with icas package
requires certain
signals/events/properties to be moved out of r2 package and placed in icas.

We are willing to synch the CAS package drafts both at IETF and ITU but
question is how?

-- Kushanava

Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 04/23/2003 04:34:50 AM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    [email-masked], "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
cc:    Michael DiGioia <[email-masked]>,
       [email-masked], [email-masked]

Subject:    RE: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

I see the reason to push it through ITU, but we definitely would not want
to
see two, or more different packages doing the same thing published one
through
IETF and another trough ITU. Thus, since MEGACO is (also) published as
IETF standard we should at least make every effort to avoid duplication of
work.

Unfortunately not all of us have direct access (at least direct say) in ITU
and
thus at least keeping IETF community informed on progress of MEGACO/H.248
related work would be very useful, as well as using this list for various
discussions.
In fact AVD-2345 contains the following statement regarding H.248.mf
packages:
"It was suggested that we send a liaison to the IESG and MEGACO proposing
this move and asking if this presents a problem to either of them.  Mr
Boyle
will draft a liaison for our consideration.  If we do not receive an
objection from
them we will progress these with a goal of consent in May.  The liaison
appears
as TD-20a." Should then the r2 package also be included in same liaison?

As far as I remember "CAS packages published by Hughes" are new revisions
of the drafts that were published a long time ago (at least for r2). This
very fact
that new revisions were published despite the CAS work moved to ITU
indicates
the lack of communication.

Can I suggest to put some wording on WG charter home page regarding
each work "moved" to ITU (links to liaisons?) and maybe at least some kind
of sense of ITU schedule for that work? I know there is wording already
about
IETF position related to packages, but still info would be very useful.
At least a pointer to latest up to date "packages guide" (AVD-2294) might
be
sufficient and H.248 related parts from 3.1.6 "Document Status" paragraph
from
AVD-2345. (BTW AVD-2294 missing info on this very CAS work as part of ITU)

In any case could you please outline an ITU schedule for CAS related
packages?

Thanks
        Aleks

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael DiGioia [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

Christian,

I agree, CAS should be part of the IETF similar to the original MEGACO
draft
work that held both organizations in sync.

/mpd

---

From: "Michael DiGioia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:47:41 -0400

Kevin,

>>IETF does not seem interested in standardizing any packages.

I don't believe I understand your comment. For many years the IETF has had a 
well know process of making protocols into drafts and then into approved 
standard RFC specifications. Do you imply by this that we should trash IETF? 
I would think not since we produced the Internet as it exists today.

>From a telephony standpoint, I think I can see your point since the ITU is 
the standards body for the telephony world. However, its a closed 
organization that tends to be run by the large telephone companies - i.e., 
not open to world participation without the necessary fees.

This whole idea was accepted by this group back in 99/00 to have concurrent 
standards. Are we all now in agreement that this was a mistake? I was with 
the minority then against this idea and for a quick standard, produced by 
only the IETF, since this is how we (IETF) have been so successful in the 
past.

I produced for my company the first IpTelephone which was at the first 
Bakeoff in NH. However, by that time, the idea of an IpTelephone using the 
media gateway protocols was not accepted by the larger community.

Where is Vince, Tom, and Brian now?

/mpd

>From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
>To: Michael DiGioia <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],   
>[email-masked], [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:26:15 -0400
>
>the
>see

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

---

From: "Michael DiGioia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:47:41 -0400

Kevin,

/mpd

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:24:16 -0400

Comments inline. [KJBII]

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael DiGioia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 6:48 PM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3Z40:EXCH]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

Kevin,

[KJBII] Note that I am talking specifically about H.248 packages, not the
general WG process of creating protocols.  The IETF has had ample
opportunity to standardize MANY H.248 packages.  We would send them to the
IESG for approval as an RFC, only to have the FORMATTING criticized (but no
comments about the TECHNICAL content).  Some of these packages have
languished for over TWO YEARS.  Does this sound like the IETF is interested
in standardizing H.248 packages?

[KJBII] The working group interests are always represented at the ITU
meetings.  Case in point: the proposed Context Attributes Descriptor was not
included in v2, solely because of the list feelings on the matter.

[KJBII] The Megaco WG is coming to an end.  Part of the reason is because
there has been no work coming out of the WG for at least the last year.  I
believe the plan is that H.248 will continue to be dually published.

[KJBII] Hmmm.  The IPPhone packages are published in H.248.3 by the ITU...

[KJBII] Tom is out of the office for the next couple of weeks due to
personal reasons.  He can address all this when he gets back.  Brian, from
my understanding, has a different focus these days, and doesn't have as much
interest in H.248 as he used to.  I'm not sure who Vince is...

/mpd

> >More over a quick look through reveals that some of the package items 
> >in icas
> >Same AVD-2316 ITU doc mentions "CAS Blocking" package in summary 
> >which does not seem to be defined in the document and also 
> >"conflicts" with above IETF "CAS Maintenance Package".
> >
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manyfolks-megaco-caspackage
> >-0
> >2.txt
> >opinion it would be much more productive to keep it on both channels 
> >(ITU and
>IETF)
> >work together to come up with some kind of game plan and post it to 
> >the list to avoid any further confusion and inconsistencies?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >         Aleks
> >
> >>contributions containing the latest drafts can be found at:
> >> > Can anyone tell me what the latest RFCs are that support CAS 
> >> > calls and
> >>where

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:24:16 -0400

Comments inline. [KJBII]

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael DiGioia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 6:48 PM
To: Boyle, Kevin [NCRTP:3Z40:EXCH]; [email-masked];

Kevin,

/mpd