Subject: Reminder//Status of ATM SDP internet draft

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:35:52 -0700

Hi Jeorg,

At the end of the MMUSIC session on Wednesday, you asked me to remind you to
send me the *comments* you have on draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-sdp-atm-02.txt.

Please do so. Your help in clearing all technical and logistic hurdles in
moving this internet draft to standards track is critical. Thanks for your help
and co-operation so far.

FYI-

- I have made careful notes of the comments that were provided during my
presentation at the IETF. I do not see any problem in incorporating them into
the next round of the internet draft, which I hope to release in the
mid-September time-frame.
- I am expecting further inputs from  Sean Sheedy. FYI, Sean and I have met
informally before the MMUSIC meeting and talked after the meeting, and we are
in agreement in what needs to be done for MPEG support. Sean needs to confirm
certain things with his CTO, following which he will provide me with detailed
input via email.
- I have found a few more inputs on the atmsdp mailing list following my
return, and I will address each and every one of them.

If we can get all this input sorted out in an internet draft to be posted in
mid-September, what do you think is the time-line for moving this to standards
track?

Thanks

- Rajesh Kumar
+--------------------+
|Carrier Packet Voice|
|Cisco Systems       |
|San Jose, California|
+--------------------+
  [email-masked]                 
  408 527 0811

---

From: "Jepsen, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:56:11 -0400

There has been some work at the ATM Forum lately which is relevant to this
discussion.  The Voice and Multimedia Over ATM (VMOA) working group at the
ATM forum is currently defining the architecture for an ATM-based next
generation network which uses MEGACO/H.248 as the MGC/MG protocol. I
presented a contribution at the May ATM Forum meeting in San Francisco which
described the IETF  (atmsdp) work on SDP for ATM, and specifically referred
to draft-rajeskumar-mmusic-sdp-atm-03 as the basis for specifying SDP for
ATM bearers.

At the July ATM Forum meeting in Barcelona, Spain, a baseline text (working
document) was created for the next generation MEGACO-based architecture
which included a reference to draft-rajeskumar-mmusic-sdp-atm-03 as the
specification for text encoding of local and remote descriptors. It also
refers to the ITU-T BICC specification (Q.1901) as one of several supported
network-level call control protocols. (The ATM Forum baseline text is
currently work in progress, and will eventually result in a published
specification.)

A liaison (atm00i-0027) was received from Study Group 11 of the ITU-T at
this meeting which detailed recent work on BICC.  It contains a very helpful
tutorial on BICC, which is to appear in a future issue of IEEE
Communications Magazine. ( ATM Forum members may download this liaison from
the liaisons directory on the ATM Forum website.) Included in this liaison
is a description of work items for CS2, including physical separation
between the Call Serving Function (CSF) and the Bearer Control Function
(BCF), using a "vertical" interface based on H.248.

Defining the interworking between BICC and MEGACO/H.248 is clearly an
important work item for all these groups, and the atmsdp work seems to be a
good logical starting point.

Best Regards
Tom Jepsen
Fujitsu Network Communications
1000 St. Albans Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609 USA
(919)790-3439

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rajesh Kumar [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:54 PM
> To:	[email-masked]; Mark Watson
> Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'BICC
> ITU-T SG11 ([email-masked])'
> Subject:	Re: Reminder//Status of ATM SDP internet draft
> 
> I'll try and answer Leslie's question based on my understanding of the
> BICC work. Correct me where I am wrong.
> 
> The CSU described below is the equivalent of the MGC in h.248/Megaco, and
> the BCU is the equivalent of the MG.
> 
> I guess CSUs communicate with each other through Q.1901-enhanced ISUP.
> They communicate  with BCUs through some protocol not addressed by BICC,
> such as Megaco/h.248. Now, Megaco uses SDP to communicate parameters.
> 
> I guess the CSUs have two options in relaying the bearer-specific
> parameters to the far-end CSU via ISUP enhanced through Q.1901. One option
> is to interwork the Megaco/h.248 parameters into Q.BICC(Q.1901)
> parameters. The other option is to just tunnel these parameters as a
> character string to the far-end, via Q.1901-enhanced ISUP. I guess this is
> what you mean by "tunneled" and "non-tunneled", but I may be wrong.
> 
> Given this, the CSU would need to understand SDP in the non-tunneled
> approach if Megaco is the protocol between the CSU and BCU. Is SG11
> devising a protocol for use between the CSU (MGC) and the BCU (MG) that is
> an alternative to Megaco/SDP?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rajesh
> 
>