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

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

Since the charter is just pointing to these as starting points I vote
to include VAP. I see it as a reasonable starting point.

Peter Musgrave

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>