RFC 3054 (rfc3054) - Page 2 of 14

Megaco IP Phone Media Gateway Application Profile

RFC 3054      Megaco IP Phone Media GW Application Profile  January 2001


   for VoIP telephones.  The TR-41.3.4 working group has included the
   "whole device" within the scope of the standard, so a full range of
   requirements including acoustic performance, protocols, methods for
   powering and safety are provided.  Where possible, the requirements
   are based on existing standards, which are included by reference.

   The TIA TR-41.3.4 working group has also recognized that its proposed
   standard must enable creative application of the equipment, encourage
   the development of new capabilities and allow for high levels of
   product customization.  To achieve this, peer to peer architectures
   that are based on protocols such as H.323 or SIP and master/slave
   architectures such as Megaco/H.248 Protocol are both necessary and
   complementary.

   In support of the Megaco/H.248 Protocol development effort, the TR-
   41.3.4 working group has considered product enabling issues and
   requirements, and has developed an approach to use the Megaco/H.248
   Protocol for Internet telephone device control.  This document
   represents the working group's current view.

   This document covers the general requirements of the Megaco IP Phone
   application (section 3), architectural approach and MG organization
   (section 4), details of specific Termination types used and Packages
   supported by each (section 5), and the Megaco IP Phone Protocol
   Profile (section 6).

2.  Conventions

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5].

3.  General Requirements

   The following general requirements were identified to drive the
   Megaco IP Phone design [1]:

   1. The Megaco IP Phone must meet the basic needs of the business user
      from day one;

   2. Provide a path for rapid expansion to support sophisticated
      business telephony features;

   3. Flexibility to allow for a very wide range of telephones and
      similar devices to be defined, from very simple to very feature
      rich;

   4. Simple, minimal design;



Blatherwick, et al.          Informational