Network Working Group T. Taylor
Request for Comments: 5125 Nortel
Obsoletes: 3525 February 2008
Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
This document reclassifies RFC 3525, Gateway Control Protocol Version
1, to Historic Status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 3525.
The purpose of this document is to reclassify RFC 3525, Gateway
Control Protocol Version 1, to Historic Status.
2. Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic
The protocol defined by RFC 3525 [RFC3525] was developed jointly by
the IETF Megaco Working Group and ITU-T Study Group 16. The ITU-T
published ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1 (originally H.248) with the
same contents as RFC 3525. Since that initial development, the ITU-T
has taken ownership of the protocol and has continued to work on it.
The protocol as originally defined in RFC 3525 underwent a series of
corrections and clarifications. H.248.1 version 1 [h248v1] was
republished in March, 2002, incorporating all changes agreed upon up
to that date. Since then, further corrections have been agreed upon.
The accumulated set of corrections to H.248.1 (03/2002) is available
in the Implementors' Guide for Recommendation H.248.1 Version 1 (03/
2002) ("Media Gateway Control Protocol") [impgdv1], which is
available at no charge on the ITU-T web site.
RFC 3525 has been rendered even more obsolete as a specification of
the Megaco/H.248 protocol by the publication of further versions of
ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1. Version 2 [h248v2] was published in
May, 2002, and is the version most widely deployed at present. It is
also the version that other standards bodies such as 3GPP are
currently using as the basis for their own profile specifications.
Version 3 [h248v3] was published more recently, in September, 2005.
Taylor Informational [Page 1]RFC 5125 RFC 3525 to Historic February 2008
In short, RFC 3525 may serve as an introduction to the Megaco/H.248
protocol, but it is misleading as a description of the protocol as
currently standardized or deployed. It is appropriate to reclassify
RFC 3525 to Historic status, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
3. Security Considerations
Reclassifying RFC 3525 has no security implications.
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any new actions by the IANA. The IANA
registries established by RFC 3525 and extended by successive
versions of ITU-T H.248.1 remain in force, along with the requirement
for expert review by an IESG-designated expert.
5. References5.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3525] Groves, C., Ed., Pantaleo, M., Ed., Anderson, T., Ed., and
T. Taylor, Ed., "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC
3525, June 2003.
5.2. Informative References
[h248v1] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
protocol: Version 1", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, March
[h248v2] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
protocol: Version 2", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, May
[h248v3] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
protocol: Version 3", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1,
[impgdv1] International Telecommunication Union, "Implementors'
Guide for Recommendation H.248.1 Version 1 (03/2002)
("Media Gateway Control Protocol")", ITU-T Recommendation
H.248.1, April 2006.
Taylor Informational [Page 2]RFC 5125 RFC 3525 to Historic February 2008Author's Address
1852 Lorraine Ave
Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8
Taylor Informational [Page 3]RFC 5125 RFC 3525 to Historic February 2008