idnits 2.17.1 draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 137. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 148. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 155. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 161. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 10, 2007) is 6194 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3525 (Obsoleted by RFC 5125) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Taylor 3 Internet-Draft Nortel 4 Obsoletes: 3525 (if approved) May 10, 2007 5 Expires: November 11, 2007 7 Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic 8 draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 11, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 39 Abstract 41 This document reclassifies RFC 3525, Gateway Control Protocol Version 42 1, to Historic Status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 3525. 44 1. Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic 46 The protocol defined by RFC 3525 [RFC3525] was developed jointly by 47 the IETF Megaco Working Group and ITU-T Study Group 16. The ITU-T 48 published ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1 (originally H.248) with the 49 same contents as RFC 3525. Since that initial development, the ITU-T 50 has taken ownership of the protocol and has continued to work on it. 51 The protocol as originally defined in RFC 3525 underwent a series of 52 corrections and clarifications. H.248.1 version 1 [h248v1] was 53 republished in March, 2002, incorporating all changes agreed up to 54 that date. Since then, further corrections have been agreed. The 55 accumulated set of corrections to H.248.1 (03/2002) is available in 56 the Implementors' Guide for Recommendation H.248.1 Version 1 (03/ 57 2002) ("Media Gateway Control Protocol") [impgdv1], available at no 58 charge on the ITU-T web site. 60 RFC 3525 has been rendered even more obsolete as a specification of 61 the Megaco/H.248 protocol by the publication of further versions of 62 ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1. Version 2 [h248v2] was published in 63 May, 2002, and is the version most widely deployed at present. It is 64 also the version that other standards bodies such as 3GPP are 65 currently using as the basis for their own profile specifications. 66 Version 3 [h248v3] was published more recently, in September, 2005. 68 In short, RFC 3525 may serve as an introduction to the Megaco/H.248 69 protocol, but is misleading as a description of the protocol as 70 currently standardized or deployed. It is appropriate to reclassify 71 RFC 3525 to Historic status, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. 73 2. Security Considerations 75 Reclassifying RFC 3525 has no security implications. 77 3. IANA Considerations 79 This document does not require any new actions by the IANA. The IANA 80 registries established by RFC 3525 and extended by successive 81 versions of ITU-T H.248.1 remain in force, along with the requirement 82 for expert review by an IESG-designated expert. 84 4. References 86 4.1. Normative References 88 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 89 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 91 [RFC3525] Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor, 92 "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003. 94 4.2. Informative References 96 [h248v1] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control 97 protocol: Version 1", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, 98 March 2002. 100 [h248v2] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control 101 protocol: Version 2", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, 102 May 2002. 104 [h248v3] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control 105 protocol: Version 3", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, 106 September 2005. 108 [impgdv1] International Telecommunication Union, "Implementors' 109 Guide for Recommendation H.248.1 Version 1 (03/2002) 110 ("Media Gateway Control Protocol")", ITU-T 111 Recommendation H.248.1, April 2006. 113 Author's Address 115 Tom Taylor 116 Nortel 117 1852 Lorraine Ave 118 Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8 119 Canada 121 Email: taylor@nortel.com 123 Full Copyright Statement 125 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 127 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 128 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 129 retain all their rights. 131 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 132 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 133 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 134 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 135 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 136 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 137 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 139 Intellectual Property 141 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 142 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 143 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 144 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 145 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 146 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 147 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 148 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 150 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 151 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 152 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 153 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 154 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 155 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 157 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 158 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 159 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 160 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 161 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 163 Acknowledgment 165 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 166 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).