RFC 5125

Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic 💖

Okay bestie, let's get into this 🧚 This is RFC 5125, written by Tom Taylor at Nortel and dated February 2008. It's Informational (so it's sharing facts, not setting a standard). It obsoletes RFC 3525, and it doesn't update anything else.

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.

Abstract 🌸

This document reclassifies RFC 3525, Gateway Control Protocol Version 1, to Historic Status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 3525.

1. Introduction ✨

The point of this doc is simple: reclassify RFC 3525, Gateway Control Protocol Version 1, to Historic Status. Bestie, it's giving closure 💅

2. Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic 🦋

So RFC 3525 [RFC3525] was built together by the IETF Megaco Working Group and ITU-T Study Group 16. The ITU-T put out ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1 (originally H.248) with the same contents as RFC 3525. Ever since that first version, the ITU-T has owned the protocol and kept working on it. The protocol as first written in RFC 3525 went through a bunch of corrections and clarifications 🔥 H.248.1 version 1 [h248v1] got republished in March, 2002, with every change agreed on up to that point. Then even more corrections got agreed on, and the full pile of fixes to H.248.1 (03/2002) lives in the Implementors' Guide for Recommendation H.248.1 Version 1 (03/2002) ("Media Gateway Control Protocol") [impgdv1]. It's free on the ITU-T web site, so no paywall drama 🎀

Now here's the lowkey tragic part 🙈 RFC 3525 is even more outdated as a spec for Megaco/H.248 because newer versions of ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1 came out. Version 2 [h248v2] dropped in May, 2002, and it's the one most widely deployed right now. Other standards bodies like 3GPP are using it as the base for their own profile specs, which is iconic. Version 3 [h248v3] came out more recently, in September, 2005.

So, the big takeaway: RFC 3525 is still a fine intro to the Megaco/H.248 protocol, but it's misleading if you want to know how the protocol is standardized or deployed today 💀 It makes total sense to move RFC 3525 to Historic status, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Main character energy for a retired spec 👑

3. Security Considerations 🔐

Reclassifying RFC 3525 has no security implications. Nothing to panic about here, periodt 💜

4. IANA Considerations 🧾

This document doesn't ask for any new actions from the IANA. The IANA registries set up by RFC 3525 and extended by later versions of ITU-T H.248.1 are still in force, along with the requirement for expert review by an IESG-designated expert ⭐

5. References 📚

5.1. 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
           2002.

[h248v2]   International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
           protocol: Version 2", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, May
           2002.

[h248v3]   International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
           protocol: Version 3", ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1,
           September 2005.

[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.

Author's Address 💌

Tom Taylor
Nortel
1852 Lorraine Ave
Ottawa, Ontario  K1H 6Z8
Canada

EMail: taylor@nortel.com

Full Copyright Statement ©️

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property 🔖

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.