Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Analysing MEGACO as a call control protocol for UMTS

From: Giuseppe Ricagni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:10:18 +0930

Dear all,

due to a lack of time in the MOBILEIP meeting I' ve not been able to
present our analysis on the  usage of the MEGACO protocol as a call
control protocol for 3GPP UMTS all-IP networks.

I just wanted to inform all the intersted people that a slot for such
presentation has been allocated whithin the Megaco WG meeting, tomorrow
(thursday) morning

Best Regards
Giuseppe Ricagni

Giuseppe Ricagni wrote:

> Subject:
>         Proposed ADELAIDE Agenda (revised)
>    Date:
>         Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:32:03 -0600
>    From:
>         Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
>      To:
>         [email-masked]
>
> Discussion here in Adelaide and review of activity on the list has
> suggested
> that we need to spend less time on the base protocol document and more
> on
> looking forward.  To that end, here is a revised proposal for the
> meeting
> agenda tomorrow morning.
>
> Broad outline:
>
> 09:00 - 09:05 Agenda bashing
> 09:05 - 09:15 Status review (Taylor, Bilalis, Blatherwick?)
> 09:15 - 09:45 Looking forward (detailed list of issues below) (Taylor)
> 09:45 - 09:55 Interoperability plans (Rosen, Taylor)
> 09:55 - 10:25 Current work
>     draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-02.txt        (Blatherwick)
>     draft-ietf-megaco-naspkg-00.txt         (Taylor)
>     draft-ietf-megaco-R2package-00.txt   (??)
>     draft-ietf-megaco-mib-00.txt              (Holdrege, Brown)
> 10:25-10:50 Potential future work
>     draft-brown-supplpkgs-00.txt               (Brown)
>     draft-bouwen-megaco-isdn-00.txt         (Van Doorselaer)
>     draft [ATM]
>     draft-ricagni-megaco-umts-all-ip-00.txt  (Ricagni)
>     Other suggestions?
> 10:50-11:30 Review of proposed corrections to base document
> (Taylor)
>
> Issues looking forward:
>
> (1) Base protocol evolution:
>    -- what process for IETF participation?
>    -- what does the IETF publish?
>    -- do we apply IETF process to take Megaco v1 to Draft Standard?
>
> (2) Packages:
>    -- what track?  Decision on per-case basis?
>    -- what process for publishing ITU-generated packages?
>    -- what process for creating IETF-generated packages?
>
> (3) Profiles:
>    -- who creates?
>    -- registration process?
>
> Bottom line: does IETF wish to continue to participate in Megaco/H.248
> development?  If so, should Megaco continue to exist, should offshoot
> WGs be
> constituted as needed, or should everything be handled at the IESG
> level?
>
> Tom Taylor
> Advisor -- Emerging Carrier IP Standards
> E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
> Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961