MEGACO Working Group Matt Holdrege (Liaison)
Internet Draft Multiservice Switching Forum
June 1999 Media Control Group
Multiservice Switching Forum requirements input to MEGACO
<draft-ietf-megaco-msf-followup-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
"work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
(Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
(Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
(US West Coast).
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract:
This document serves as input into the IETF MEGACO requirements
process. It includes requirements as input by MSF members and
refined by the MSF Media Control group and requests clarifications
of requirements currently being considered at IETF. This document
has been prepared in response to a document prepared by Nancy
Greene, one of the IETF Megaco Requirements editors. This is a
followup to a response from MEGACO.
Disclaimer:
This is a representation of the preliminary requirements generated
by the Multiservice Switching Forum/Media Control Working Group.
This document has been approved by the Working Group for liaison
distribution to the IETF. However, this document in no way binds any
of the member organizations to the ideas presented. It should also
be noted that this work is incomplete and a draft. It is being
submitted now to meet the MEGACO WG timelines. The MSF will revisit
this work in the future and may add, change or delete its
requirements.
Holdrege [Page 1]
I-D MSF requirements followup to MEGACO June 1999
Introduction:
MSF submitted a document entitled "Multiservice Switching Forum
requirements input to MEGACO" to the IETF MEGACO group as Internet
draft draft-ietf-megaco-msf-reqs-01.txt for consideration. Most of
the requirements proposed in draft-ietf-megaco-msf-reqs-01.txt have
been incorporated in the latest MEGACO requirements draft draft-
ietf-megaco-reqs-03. Nancy Greene, one of the editors of draft-
ietf-megaco-reqs-03 provided a document detailing how the
requirements in draft-ietf-megaco-msf-reqs-01.txt are addressed in
draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.
This document requests the addition of requirements into the next
IETF MEGACO requirements draft that the MSF Media Control WG does
not feel were not adequately addressed in draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.
This document also requests clarification on some requirements that
are currently in draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.
Requirements:
Requirement 1:
The original MSF document draft-ietf-megaco-msf-reqs-01.txt stated:
Report: The protocol shall allow the request and notification of
mid-call trigger events.
The current version of draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03 states: 5.4 c.
Allow reporting of detected events on the MG to the MGC. The
protocol should provide the means to minimize the messaging required
report commonly-occurring event sequences.
We would like the MEGACO requirements document to include the
following requirement: Report: The protocol shall allow the MGC to
request the arming of a mid-call trigger even after the call has
been set up.
Requirement 2:
The original MSF requirement in draft-ietf-megaco-msf-reqs-01.txt
read: Function: The Protocol shall allow the recovery or
redistribution of traffic without call/packet loss.
The IETF response indicated: Not added - no call/packet loss is too
strict a requirement.
We would like to modify the original requirement to read: Function:
The Protocol shall allow the recovery or redistribution of traffic
without call loss.
We hope that the restated requirement can be included in the IETF
MEGACO requirements document.
Requirement 3:
The requirements draft draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.txt states: 8. d.
Support scalability from very small to very large MGs: The protocol
must support MGs with capacities ranging from one to a few tens of
thousands of terminations.
Holdrege [Page 2]
I-D MSF requirements followup to MEGACO June 1999
We would like to modify the requirement to read: 8. d. Support
scalability from very small to very large MGs: The protocol must
support MGs with capacities ranging from one to millions of
terminations.
Clarifications:
We would like to require the following clarifications:
Clarification 1: The IETF draft draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.txt
states:
5.7. c. Provide the mechanism for the MGC to specify that the MG
report accounting information automatically at end of call, in mid-
call upon request, at specific time intervals as specified by the
MGC and at unit usage thresholds as specified by the MGC.
5.7. e. Allow the MGC to have some control over which statistics are
reported, to enable it to manage the amount of information
transferred.
We would like the requirements to clarify the difference between
accounting information and statistics. The current requirements have
ambiguity regarding these two terms.
The MSF view of the terms: Statistics - aggregate information,
usage measurements and counters Accounting - per call information,
call detail record information (e.g. AMA). This information may be
subjected to more rigorous auditing than statistical information as
well as regulatory review.
Clarification 2:
The IETF draft draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-03.txt states:
d. Specifically support collection of:
* start and stop time, by media flow,
* volume of content carried (e.g. number of packets/cells transmit-
ted, number received with and without error, interarrival jitter),
by media flow,
* QOS statistics, by media flow.
We would like to understand the reasoning behind collecting the
specific type of statistics indicated in draft-ietf-megaco-reqs-
03.txt compared to other information (e.g. type of resources like
echo cancellers, codecs etc. used.)
Author's Address
Matt Holdrege
Ascend Communications
1701 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA 94502
matt@ascend.com
Holdrege [Page 3]
