IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dispatch] (VIPR) - VAP in or out?

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 17:23 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 238D03A68BC for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nfNJEJvziMid for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADFC3A68B7 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIdUF0yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACedHGmYpothRoEg08
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,421,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="545309870"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2010 17:23:32 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5FHNENC018261; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:23:32 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: <4C06A36B.3090103@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:23:31 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E3FD94DC-61AA-411A-A4EF-5303C1D1DD97@cisco.com>
References: <D92721E4-36AC-4B75-BCDF-E90A9242A286@cisco.com> <4C06A36B.3090103@acm.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: [dispatch] (VIPR) - VAP in or out?
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: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:23:29 -0000

On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

>> 
>> The problem statement and some possible starting points for solutions are further desired in the following internet drafts which shall form the bases of the WG documents:
>> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-overview
>> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-reload-usage
>> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-pvp
>> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-sip-antispam
> 
> VAP is not listed here.  Is it an oversight or is it because the WG will work
> only on interoperability between ViPR servers?

I could go either way on VAP. On one hand, the minimal thing we need to standardize to have interoperability between domain is just the above stuff without VAP. On the other hand, VAP is a very simple way to modularize what is happening inside a domain. VAP allows information about PSTN call to be given to the server doing the VIPR stuff and allows the VIPR server to tell routing engines and PBX inside the domain about new routes. 

I'd be interested in hearing what other thing. It's easy to add something like VAP to the charter.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email