Subject: [Megaco] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-00.txt]

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400

We are obsoleting the Megaco RFC, as discussed a while ago. The body of this 
draft explains where to get more up-to-date specifications. The IANA registry 
remains, and RFC 3525 will remain in the repository but with altered status.

Please send any comments to the Megaco list. If no one has any comments on the 
text of this draft, I'll send it to the IESG in a week or two.

Tom Taylor

[email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
> 
> 	Title		: Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic
> 	Author(s)	: T. Taylor
> 	Filename	: draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 4
> 	Date		: 2007-5-3
> 	
>    This document reclassifies RFC 3525, Gateway Control Protocol Version
>    1, to Historic Status.  This memo also obsoletes RFC 3525.
> 
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-00.txt
> 

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

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 15:12:12 +1000

Hello Tom,

The text looks reasonable. A few comments:

1. Comment on IANA impacts: "The IANA registries established by RFC 3525 
and extended by successive versions of ITU-T H.248.1 remain in force, 
along with the requirement  for expert review by an IESG-designated 
expert."
 
I agree these are true of changing the status to Historic. The 2nd 
statement with respect to review by an IESG-designated expert however is 
proposed to be changed, see 
<http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0703_She/TD-63.zip> . 
I'm currently in discussion with IANA on how best to document it.

To avoid confusion I would suggest just to state: "The IANA registries 
established by RFC 3525 and extended by successive versions of ITU-T 
H.248.1 remain in force." in the draft.

2. I think it would be good to include a reference to RFC2026 (and some 
text about it) so people understand what Historic is and under what 
clause the RFC is being moved to historic status.

3. Linked to the above comment do we need to re-inforce the difference 
between making a "specification" historic and making the Megaco protocol 
itself historic? i.e.

"RFC 3525 <as a specification of the Megaco protocol> has been rendered 
even more obsolete by the publication of
   further versions of ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1.  Version 2 [h248v2]
   was published in May, 2002, and is the version most widely deployed
   at present.  It is also the version that other standards bodies such
   as 3GPP are currently using as the basis for their own profile
   specifications.  Version 3 [h248v3] was published more recently, in
   September, 2005.

   In short, RFC 3525 <as a specification> may serve as an introduction 
to the Megaco/H.248
   protocol, but is misleading as a description of the protocol as
   currently standardized or deployed.  It is appropriate to reclassify
   RFC 3525 <specification> to Historic status <in favour of the more 
recent ITU specifications>."

Regards, Christian

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> We are obsoleting the Megaco RFC, as discussed a while ago. The body 
> of this draft explains where to get more up-to-date specifications. 
> The IANA registry remains, and RFC 3525 will remain in the repository 
> but with altered status.
>
> Please send any comments to the Megaco list. If no one has any 
> comments on the text of this draft, I'll send it to the IESG in a week 
> or two.
>
> Tom Taylor
>

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:21:34 -0400

The matter of who designates the expert is in the realm of politics. The IESG 
will have something to say about it. I've copied Cullen Jennings and Jon 
Peterson, the most directly affected Area Directors.

Your other suggestions are good ones and will be taken up in a second version of 
the I-D.