IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BB328C2D7 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.673, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBuKArSm6xjE for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B9F28C2D8 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJ9L6ktAaMHG/2dsb2JhbACeKXGgTplkgmaCLASDQIwF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,215,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="128735681"
Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.193.198]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2010 13:37:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4CDbNMY000510; Wed, 12 May 2010 13:37:36 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A1C3BB28-8582-436E-A2CE-320E1C97423C@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:37:36 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6B2B53E-17AA-4F05-93F1-318F0AC3F159@cisco.com>
References: <20100323161249.21FDA3A6A55@core3.amsl.com> <B9EE578A-0E22-4EDF-A942-8E1DDCA9530F@cisco.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CADE09A2EA@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4BAA55A6.6030600@softarmor.com> <1269459664.2149.294.camel@localhost> <9DAF1F09-7EEE-48F7-A0B6-DAE48F87ACC4@cs.columbia.edu> <1269466329.2149.311.camel@localhost> <A1C3BB28-8582-436E-A2CE-320E1C97423C@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:27 -0000

As far as I can tell, and I was on a few of the sipforum calls, the primary problem with "not sufficient for needs of commercial service providers" was that there was no way SIP Forum could bill people a bunch of money from a number given out by IANA. There was some implications by at least one person that IANA was not capable of running a registry but I never got any details on that. 


On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>> 
>> The attached is a problem statement I drafted for the SIP Forum Board
>> that summarized the issues raised in the task group and from some
>> external reviewers.
> 
> To quote:
> 
> The administrative and legal infrastructure of using the existing
>      first-come first-served ITAD registry at IANA is not sufficient
>      for the needs of commercial service providers.
> 
> * No reasons are given for this determination.
> 
>  Using the existing ITAD name and registry may create confusion
>      regarding whether or not other parts of the protocols and
>      procedures in the TRIP specification and/or the ISN/Freenum trial
>      are also applicable (the intent is that no other part of these
>      other specifications and procedures be used).
> 
> * I admit that I find this speculative. As long as the mechanism is clear, the users of the DNS record won't care.
> 
> The ITAD number is defined as a 32 bit number.
> 
> * This translates into (roughly) a 9-digit decimal integer. It seems rather unlikely that we would exceed 4 billion service providers or that we'd want longer identifiers than 9 digits.
> 
> In general, I agree that the ITAD registry would have to be expanded and the use clarified, but re-use of the same registry (say, enterprise numbers) for different purposes is not unusual.
> 
> Henning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email