Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco CAS support

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?
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:

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,

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-0
>2.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:
>> >
>> > 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
>> >

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

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

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

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

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:49:53 -0400

Hi,

I just want to say: excellent, just excellent information!
May I suggest including this info (at least the history part) in liaison to 
IETF?

In my opinion the list is the best mediation/discussion point for this case.

I just hope you (CAS pkgs authors) folks can come up with clean solution
and soon. Please remember that since these drafts were out there for a
quite a while I'm sure there are implementations that use them and which would
have to be updated once final solution is published. The longer this question
is "in the air" the more possibilities of incompatibility of different
implementations we will get.

One more question: what is the position of new casmntc package in all that?
Is the idea for it to become "CAS Blocking" package referenced from AVD-2316?
What is the significance of it to be a separate package?
I mean can't it be folded it into bcas package?

Thanks
         Aleks

At 08:11 AM 4/23/2003, [email-masked] wrote:

>htt

---

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:49:53 -0400

Hi,

Thanks
         Aleks

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:52:24 +1000

Hello,

I think to move forward on this issue the editor's of the relevant drafts should
have further discussions on how to move this work forward and present a unified
approach to the list.

The main thing is that the work is progressed and that the information is
available to both those in the ITU and the IETF.

Regards,
Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:52:24 +1000

Hello,

Regards,
Christian