[Asap] Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

ASAP WG,

 

In section 3, I see "comprised of".  That should be "composed of".

In section 4 regarding this sentence: "The need for an enterprise telephony
network to obtain a capability set document from an Internet Telephony
Service Provider (ITSP) is documented in Automatic Peering for SIP Trunks
[I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer]."  Since this is an example section, I would
suggest moving that to section 3.  Let section 4 be strictly example, not
justification.  The sentence immediately following this explains what the
link relation enables.  Again, I'd move that, but I think it's already
well-covered at this point. Maybe just remove it?

How would the enterprise know to query "http:// ssp1.example.com"?  Is that
preconfigured? Perhaps a word about that would be useful. What if the ITSP
has different customers with different capabilities offered? I would expect
that to be likely. An ITSP could configure different resource per customer
using "http" type resource identifiers, but I wonder if it might make more
sense to use urn:uuid, acct, or some other URI type? My preference would be
for using the "acct" URI like "acct:[e-mail]".  (I noted a
similar example in draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.)

 

Further, it might make sense for the WebFinger response to align with the
example in section 9.2 of draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.  Perhaps the URL
returned should point to
https://capserver.ssp1.com/capdoc?trunkid=trunkent1456.

 

Paul