Subject: [midcom] Midcom protocol specification and status

From: "Thomas Huang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:22:45 -0700

I have studied the three major doc in the repository:
- Midcom architecture and framework
- Midcom requirement
- STUN

But I can't find the MidCom protocol specification itself. Could you please
help?
- any draft spec that this group is working on
- what's the concensus among the group and other related groups about midcom
  (SIP, MGCP, MEGACO)
- Are there vendors starting to develop midcom boxes following the
architecture?
  I am in the process of meeting a couple of vendors, but they don't say in
literature
  what they follow. If yes, who are leading the pack?

Thanks for any help.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: "Mark Pietras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:41:34 -0500

Thomas,

- There is no protocol specification at this point.  The work is in
progress.  Currently the working group is doing two things: 1) working
the STUN portion of the current charter which addresses short-term needs
and a specific market, and 2) working the protocol portion of the
current charter by evaluating several different protocol proposals
against the framework/requirements docs as candidates for the actual
Midcom protocol.

- There are several vendors developing "Midcom boxes" currently.  Some
even have some in production networks.  They generally follow the Midcom
architecture, but currently use different protocols for policy control
as there is no standard yet.  Hence the current charter of this working
group.  Most of the vendors actively work in or at least follow this
group, so I'm sure each would suggest they "lead the pack."

Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thomas Huang
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [midcom] Midcom protocol specification and status

But I can't find the MidCom protocol specification itself. Could you
please
help?
- any draft spec that this group is working on
- what's the concensus among the group and other related groups about
midcom
  (SIP, MGCP, MEGACO)
- Are there vendors starting to develop midcom boxes following the
architecture?
  I am in the process of meeting a couple of vendors, but they don't say
in
literature
  what they follow. If yes, who are leading the pack?

Thanks for any help.

Thomas

---

From: "Thomas Huang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:22:33 -0700

Hello Mark,

Thank you very much for the info and update.

Would you be kind enough to email some proposed protocol drafts that may
make their way to publication? I got the impression that you are involved in
the reviewing them and drafting.

It apears that this MIDCOM framework/architecture would provide the solution
for complete new deployment using this type of controllable middlebox.
However are there efforts also in the making also addressing the deployment
of voip in existing FW/NAT environment?

I studied some sip/rtp proxy drafts from SIP/SIPPING group as well as some
early packet relay in MGCP drafts. Is this group trying to consolidate the
different approaches? as the one I mentioned?

You said companies have started to build the boxes based on midcom
architecture and some in production. I know Cisco doesn't offer it yet (to
my limited knowledge). How could customers be assured that the
boxes/hardware they buy today will be upgradable when there is a standard?

Could you please kindly tell me if I could find the active member list of
this midcom working group?

Regards,
Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Mark Pietras
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 7:42 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [midcom] Midcom protocol specification and status

Thomas,

Mark.

-----Original Message-----

Thanks for any help.

Thomas

---

From: "Mark Pietras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:25:54 -0500

I'd classify myself largely as being a "regular observer."

You can get the submissions, working group archives, etc. from the
www.ietf.org site.

Correct, there is the "new device solution" which is the "controllable
middlebox," and there is the shorter-term solution for working with
existing environments (STUN).  Each does certain things well in
different environments.

Buyers of new devices would simply have to pick a vendor they are
comfortable with "to be assured that the boxes/hardware they buy today
will be upgradable when there is a standard."

Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thomas Huang
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:23 PM
To: Mark Pietras; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [midcom] Midcom protocol specification and status

Hello Mark,

Would you be kind enough to email some proposed protocol drafts that may
make their way to publication? I got the impression that you are
involved in
the reviewing them and drafting.

It apears that this MIDCOM framework/architecture would provide the
solution
for complete new deployment using this type of controllable middlebox.
However are there efforts also in the making also addressing the
deployment
of voip in existing FW/NAT environment?

I studied some sip/rtp proxy drafts from SIP/SIPPING group as well as
some
early packet relay in MGCP drafts. Is this group trying to consolidate
the
different approaches? as the one I mentioned?

You said companies have started to build the boxes based on midcom
architecture and some in production. I know Cisco doesn't offer it yet
(to
my limited knowledge). How could customers be assured that the
boxes/hardware they buy today will be upgradable when there is a
standard?

Could you please kindly tell me if I could find the active member list
of
this midcom working group?

Regards,
Thomas

-----Original Message-----

Thomas,

Mark.

-----Original Message-----

Thanks for any help.

Thomas