There is now much H.248 documentation (such as implementers guides and Package descriptions that are fairly central to H.248) that is only described in the ITU domain. Strictly speaking, all of this would need revisiting to ensure that it conformed with IETF minimalism.
I think a minimal IETF Protocol Profile would in itself be confusing to beginners and also lead to new types of interoperability problems when the inevitable happens: ITU and IETF implementations are commissioned to face each other in a network.
All the relevant ITU standards are now available without subscription, so in my view, deprecating the IETF documents is the sensible way forward.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [ taylor nortel.com">mailto:taylornortel.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 14:51
To: megacoietf.org
Subject: [Megaco] Future of RFC 3525
RFC 3525 has now become a stumbling block to beginners, since it is way behind the state of H.248 standardization. We should do something about it. I see three
possibilities:
- change RFC 3525 status to Historic without doing anything else. This would warn people to look at the ITU-T documentation instead.
- replace 3525 with a more up-to-date version. I'll comment that I personally am not willing to bring H.248.1v3 to the IETF because it has been diluted by optimizations. There is a standard axiom in the IETF that if there is more than way to do something you have an interoperability problem.
- create an IETF-defined profile of the protocol, starting with H.248.1v3 and getting consensus on aspects that should be pruned out to leave a common core protocol.
Could I have an indication of interest in one option or another? The default action if no response will be to change RFC 3525 from Proposed Standard to Historic.
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megacoietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
|
