Re: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?

On the ITU site the following are all available
H.248 (06/00) [the original v1 ] labeled as "in force"
H.248.1 (03/02) [the corregenda version of v1 with IG incorporated] 
labeled as "superseded"
H.248.1 (05/02) [v2] labeled as "in force"

The "in force" status of H.248 (06/00) is erroneous but as far as I know 
that version will continue to be available. It should be labeled as 
"superseded" just as the 03/02 version is.  

Both of the H.248.1 (03/02 and 05/02) will remain available.  Even 
though 03/02 is labeled as "superseded" it will continue to be available 
and is considered to be the official "v1" as 05/02 is the official "v2". 
 The ITU only considers the most recent edition of a recommendation as 
"in force" but that does not mean that earlier editions and versions 
cannot be used.  Our negotiation procedures even allow MG and MGC to 
negotiate the use of earlier "superseded" versions.

As mentioned by Kevin, we are working with the ITU folks to have the 
version numbers (V1, V2 etc) printed on the first page of ITU 
recommendations to help make this clearer.  Officially such version 
numbers have no meaning to ITU but the version does appear in the ASN.1 
and ABNF messages.  It will be clearer when it is also printed on the 
first page of the recommendations.

It is also the convention of SG16 that all corrections in approved 
Implementors Guides also be considered part of the standard and the 
version affected is specified in the IG.  The current IG has correction 
to V1 (03/02), to V2 (05/02) and corrections that affect both. 
 Officially in the ITU these are not normative until they are included 
in a new or revised recommendation, but SG16 convention has been to 
consider them part of the standard once approved at a Study Group meeting.

Tom has explained his plans to republish these versions as RFCs for 
easier access by IETF members, but I just wanted to reply to Shri that 
it is certainly SG16's intention to have continued access to V1 and to 
considered it an available protocol that can be used and negotiated 
between MG and MGC.

SHRI KUMAR wrote:

>Hello Tom/ Anil
>
>But, then how H.248 (06/2000 the one that relates to
>RFC 3015 or vice-versa as Tom specified) is still in
>force on the ITU's site when H.248.1 (corr 03/2002)
>has been superseded by H.248.1 (05/2002)?
>I think creation of H.248.1 (-->.1) has changed the
>lineage of the H.248 in ITU. So, is the original H.248
>(ITU) going to survive this later onslaught? If yes,
>how can IETF obsolete RFC3015?
>
>Only Tom can clear this confusion.
>
>--shri
>
> --- Anil Jangam <anilj@mahindrabt.com> wrote: >
>inline..
>  
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor@nortelnetworks.com>
>>To: "Pascal Lambers" <pascal.lambers@pandora.be>;
>><Megaco@ietf.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:50 PM
>>Subject: RE: [Megaco] Megaco: which spec to use?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Let's hope you haven't opened up a Pandora's box
>>>      
>>>
>>here!
>>    
>>
>>>Turning to the IETF side: the IESG has approved
>>>draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt as an RFC,
>>>      
>>>
>>obsoleting RFC 3015.  I'm not
>>    
>>
>>>sure I passed this news on to the list!  Pardon me
>>>      
>>>
>>for my oversight.
>>
>>I think you have not. Will this draft
>>(draft-ietf-megaco-3015corr-02.txt)
>>be turned in to the Version 2 for the rfc3015
>>(Earlier drafts mention
>>Version 1)???
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Anyway, typically it will take a few months for
>>>      
>>>
>>this document to pass
>>    
>>
>>>through the RFC Editor's queue and be assigned an
>>>      
>>>
>>RFC number.
>>    
>>
>>>I will recycle version 2, fixing the missing
>>>      
>>>
>>initial characters and draft
>>    
>>
>>>date, then pass it to the IESG for approval.  My
>>>      
>>>
>>intention is that this
>>will
>>    
>>
>>>update but not obsolete the 3015corr RFC, but I
>>>      
>>>
>>just realized that I
>>should
>>    
>>
>>>put that question to the list.  Do people want two
>>>      
>>>
>>versions of Megaco to
>>    
>>
>>>coexist, or do they want to follow the ITU-T
>>>      
>>>
>>viewpoint and allow v2 to
>>    
>>
>>>obsolete v1?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I feel both the versions be available for public
>>access. Its quite possible
>>that most of the people are following Version1 (not
>>necesary though) for
>>their current implementation and it would be a good
>>idea to have both the
>>references in hand. However I hope that any new
>>version will always contain
>>a list of changes from its previous release.
>>
>>/anil.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>*********************************************************
>  
>
>>Disclaimer
>>
>>This message (including any attachments) contains 
>>confidential information intended for a specific 
>>individual and purpose, and is protected by law. 
>>If you are not the intended recipient, you should 
>>delete this message and are hereby notified that 
>>any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
>>message, or the taking of any action based on it, 
>>is strictly prohibited.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>*********************************************************
>  
>
>>Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Megaco mailing list
>>Megaco@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco 
>>    
>>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
>       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Megaco mailing list
>Megaco@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>
>  
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson                     tlatla@verizon.net
Voice: +1 908.766.4463	        Mobile: +1 908.342.9595
http://www.gti.net/tla
-------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco