Subject: Re: ATM Package for Megaco

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:54:29 -0700

atmdsp/MMUSIC colleagues,

  I would like draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-sdp-atm-01.txt to move to standards
track in the July meeting of the IETF in Philadephia.

I haven't received much feedback on it, except a comment by Jeorg Ott that the
Internet Draft violated SDP syntax in some places. If it does, then these are
probably minor can be fixed. I would really appreciate pinpointed comments and
I will work to get them resolved ASAP
and I would like to move this draft to its next logical step, or simply
withdraw it from circulation. The draft has been out there for 3 months now.

Please send me your comments and criticisms.

Thanks.

Rajesh

Thanks--Rajesh 

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

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:38:06 +0200

Rahesh,

I am not sure it is as easy as you put it.

One of the major comments I had at the last meeting is that we now see
several documents being worked on that try to extend SDP in a way that it
would be able to carry ATM addresses and parameters.  What I do not want
to see in the end are two incompatible solutions none which addresses the
the entire spectrum of what is needed.  This is why I asked the authors
of the two drafts to get together and work out a common solution for the
ATM part.

Then checking and possibly fixing the syntax is another (hopefully minor)
issue.  With respect to this: you should explicitly show that your
solution is backward compatible with SDP (in the sense of RFC 2327).  This
means in particular explaining why a non-ATM-SDP-aware device will react
in a well-defined and safe manner when receiving such ATM parameters in SDP.
(Note that this may be trivial and that this may not necessarily have to be
in the final text to be published; but it should serve for double-checking
compabitibility during the future document revisions.

Joerg

> I haven't received much feedback on it, except a comment by Jeorg Ott that
> the Internet Draft violated SDP syntax in some places. If it does, then these
> are probably minor can be fixed. I would really appreciate pinpointed
> comments and I will work to get them resolved ASAP

---

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:18:08 -0700

Jeorg,
Thanks for your quick response. I still need some additional pointers and
direction from you on how to proceed from there. As you are aware, h.248/Megaco
relies heavily on SDP. From that point of view, it is necessary to reach some
closure on AN ATM SDP specification. If you do not think MMUSIC is the proper
forum for it (I think it is), then please let me know.

>of the two drafts to get together and work out a common solution for the

Who are the other author(s)? Are they on the atmsdp mailing list? What is the
other draft? I would like to take a look at it and hammer out a common
solution  with them if they are interested.  I am sorry I could not attend the
Adelaide, Australia meeting: did they present their paper there? Any pointers
would be appreciated - once I know who they are I'll contact them and try to
work it out.

>compabitibility during the future document revisions.

OK - I'll give this a shot. Who should I send the results to? The atmdsp
mailing list? The confctrl mailing list?

Finally, I haven't seen any input from either of those lists (except your
inputs and the inputs of the ISC_DeviceControl group when I reviewed this
document with them in San Jose, California). Does this mean that the document
is in pretty good shape? Or that it is unimportant? Or that there is a better
one? Or that people are too busy? Whatever the reason, I think there is a need
to move this matter forward. 

Do you think there should be discussion on it in the Philadephia meeting in
July? Please let me know so that I can make my plans accordingly.

Thanks,

Rajesh

Thanks--Rajesh

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:07:25 +0200

Rajesh,

sorry for the response delay.  The Internet Drafts (which hopefully contain the
authors' addresses) can be found at

    http://www.dmn.tzi.org/ietf/mmusic/47/id/draft-sheedy-mmusic-rtsp-ext-00.txt

Yes, I do believe that MMUSIC is the proper form for this kind of discussion
(particularly if it involves extensions that are of broader applicability).
MMUSIC should deal with all general aspects of SDP extensions and also 
define/constrain how such extensions are to be done.  For very specific
applications, however, the proper place for discussion 35 different relevant
parameters which are not of broader applicability might be elsewhere
(e.g. in the context of MEGACO) but the general constraints should not
be violated.

So everything of general interest (and from my memory this probably applies
to most/all of your proposal -- but don't quote me on this as its from memory :-)
should be done in MMUSIC.

> OK - I'll give this a shot. Who should I send the results to? The atmdsp mailing list?
> The confctrl mailing list?

Both. 

Typically, lack of response means that people are busy or consider something
not too important.  As we have several proposal on SDP for ATM, unimportance is
less likely.  Nevertheless, it's probably not among people's top priority.

Also, note that we are working on SDPng (how it was called on a recent thread)
to provide a better framework for capability description and negotiation.
In this context, I promise to go through the document during our discussion
cycles here and get you some further feedback; but please allow this to take
a week or two)

I agree that it is important to move the stuff ahead.  As I stated before,
I'd like to see the stuff coordinated with other work in this area and,
if possible, also with the work on SDPng.  But for the latter, I am sort of
the bottleneck right now (working on this :-)

You are *very* welcome to present and discuss the revisions in Pittburg
at the next IETF.  I'll put this down in my agenda for some 20 minutes.  Let
me know if you need more.

Joerg

---

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:35:21 -0800

Jeorg,
This document has been sitting for as an Internet Draft, in various 
versions, since March 9 of this year. Since then it has been extensively 
reviewed, commented on and updated. All comments and inputs so far have 
been accounted for. Some of the inputs have been very exhaustive and 
detailed. The document has been fairly stable since the last IETF in 
Pittsburgh, and comments/changes in it since then have been fairly minor 
and have not impacted its core constructs and concepts.

I think all interested parties are satisfied with this document as it 
stands (with maybe VERY minor changes that can be easily accommodated), and 
it is time to issue a Working Group last call before IESG last call and 
subsequent rfc status. Many different vendors have been designing to this 
document and they would like to see closure and standards status for it. 
Also, this document is a key reference in the h.248/Megaco effort, and for 
this reason, it is necessary to move it quickly to the next state.

I would therefore request you to issue an MMUSIC working group last call on 
this document. Please advise.

Thanks,

Rajesh Kumar
Cisco Systems
Phone 408 527 0811
Fax 408 853-1101