Re: C-439 H.248.50 (ex H.248.NATTT): Updates - draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive

Hello Albrecht,

Whilst I would like to Consent H.248.50 as it has been around for some 
time we couldn't Consent H.248.50 with a dependency on an IETF draft. 
However the dependency is reasonably minor effectively giving the reader 
an informative hint on how a MGC communicates the use of keepalive with 
a peer MGC. Which in effect is outside the scope of the H.248 interface. 
So we could remove this reference and Consent the document.

Regards, Christian

On 9/07/2010 11:38 PM, Schwarz Albrecht wrote:
> Christian, Tommy,
> guess that it remains just a last dependency (-> 
> draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive) concerning the consent/approval of 
> Draft H.248.50 (ex H.248.NATTT), if C-439 would be approved.
> There seems to be still some "To Do's" when looking at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive/#ballot
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive/#history
> However, the very majority of this material is pretty stable.
> The impact of this IETF draft to the H.248 kar Package is primarily 
> related to the Signal parameter kapt, where we got seven Keepalive 
> Packet Types.
> Would you agree to such a brief summary of Draft H.248.50 status?
> If yes, I could imagine to consent/approve Draft H.248.50 already at 
> this SG16, providing some "warning information" to specific kapt 
> values ("if required at all").
> There are already meaningful applications of such a kar v1 package in 
> my opinion.
> When the IETF published finally the RFC, we may cross-check again, 
> and, if required, provide an IG item (or even a kar v2).
> Any views?
> Albrecht