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

["Derek Engi (deengi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul, thank you so much for the feedback on this draft. We have incorporated your comments into the latest version and will be posting a summary of changes.

Thanks again!
Derek



[signature_102004811]
Derek Engi
Product Management Architect
Customer Experience (CX)
Analytics, Automation, and Remediation Technologies (AART)
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Tel: [phone]
CCIE - 54357
[signature_154329221]<http://cisco.webex.com/meet/deengi> [signature_1601905467] <http://reachme.cisco.com/call/deengi>
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-10 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
27709-4987 Research Triangle Park
United States
Cisco.com<http://www.cisco.com/>
[signature_780940817]
Think before you print.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here<http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/terms-sale-software-license-agreement/company-registration-information.html> for Company Registration Information.



From: Asap <[e-mail]> on behalf of Paul E. Jones <paulej=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:44 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Asap] Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01
Just one follow-up on the last paragraph below.  The text in draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer says, “This request can be challenged by the service provider to authenticate the enterprise”, which would also facilitate returning a tailored response given the authentication credentials.  In that case (and perhaps even more preferred), the URI in the WebFinger response should not include identifying information itself.  It would be redundant.

Paul


From: Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:03 PM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

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