Subject: Last Call: Conventions for the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP)for ATM Bearer Connections to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:40:06 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control Working Group to consider Conventions for the use of the
Session Description Protocol (SDP)for ATM Bearer Connections
<draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by January 29, 2001.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:26:43 -0500

At the very last moment, someone in my organization has stated that there is
an inconsistency between the way User Service Information is conveyed in
Q.1950 (BICC) and the way it is conveyed in the 'isup-usi' attribute
described in the draft.  I cannot see the discrepancy myself.  The person
involved is in the UK, so I can't get back to them today. I've asked for
more details, which I should have tomorrow morning.  Apologies if this is a
false alarm.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:40 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Last Call: Conventions for the use of the Session Description
> Protocol (SDP)for ATM Bearer Connections to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
>

---

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:01:12 -0800

Dear Tom PT Taylor /IESG/Joerg Ott,

Mark Watson is the person in Tom-PT Taylor's organization who noted the 
discrepancy. He has also indicated the inconsistency to me today. I believe 
the IESG allows a final edit of the Internet Draft before it becomes an 
RFC. I will work with Mark Watson to clear the issue; I understand his point.

Does this sound like an acceptable solution? I hope we do not have to 
reiterate another Internet Draft before going to RFC.

Rajesh

At 04:26 PM 1/29/01 -0500, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>At the very last moment, someone in my organization has stated that there 
>is an inconsistency between the way User Service Information is conveyed 
>in Q.1950 (BICC) and the way it is conveyed in the 'isup-usi' attribute 
>more details, which I should have tomorrow morning.  Apologies if this is 
>a false alarm.
>
> > From: The IESG 
> [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt 
>
> >
> >

Rajesh Kumar

********************************
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]
Phone 1 408 527 0811
Fax 1 408 853 1101
Page mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:47:59 -0500

Since the ITU SG11/BICC group seems intent on breaking SDP in their IPBCP 
work by turning it into a request/response protocol, does it really matter?

Chip

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                       Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:56:11 -0500

I've gotten details since my last note.  The culprit is Megaco/H.248, which
is referenced in the Q.1950 document.  The problem is that the ATM-SDP draft
faithfully reproduces the approved contents of Megaco/H.248, but an error
noted since June has led to a change which is found in the H.248
Implementor's Guide as approved by SG 16 in November.  The sooner I produce
an annotated version of the original document the better!

The change made was to include the entire USI content as defined in Q.763
sec. 3.57, not just the Layer 1 protocol identification.  

> From: Chip Sharp [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:48 PM
> To: Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Rajesh Kumar
> Subject: RE: Last Call: Conventions for the use of the Session
> Description Protocol (SDP)for ATM Bearer Connections to Proposed
> Standard
> 
> 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt>http:/
/www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-04.txt