Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 2 - PSTN?

["Milinski, Alexander (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Cullen, Jonathan,

how is the PSTN defined in the sense of the charter?

Does it include the SIP networks existing today, which are
interconnected to the PSTN in the common sense (S= "switched"...) and
you can reach by dialling a phone number?

Regards,
Alex

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 3:09 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'DISPATCH list'
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 2 - PSTN?
> 
> Roni,
> 
> The key requirement of the solution is that:
> 
> 1. it be possible to validate the mapping of phone number to a domain 
> which is "responsible" for that number, based on the 
> definition Cullen 
> has provided, and that
> 
> 2. such validation be possible using only access to publicly 
> available 
> open interfaces to the PSTN, so that the validation can be 
> performed by 
> any domain wishing to participate.
> 
> At the moment, the only publicly open interface to the PSTN is the 
> ability to make a call. If you are aware of other open and publicly 
> available interfaces by which we can perform validation, I'd love to 
> hear about them :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
> 
> Roni Even wrote:
> > Hi Cullen,
> > I am sorry that you feel this way about me but I do not 
> take this personally
> > since I am used to being blamed on lots of things.
> > 
> > Maybe I was not clear about my view.
> > Section 5.1 of the vipr overview provides the key 
> properties that the
> > solution requires and I think it is a very good summary of 
> the requirements.
> > I also think that dialing using E.164 numbers is better in 
> many deployments.
> > (My background in H.323 has led me to it and BTW I believe 
> that any such
> > solution can be applicable to H.323)
> > 
> > From this point the vipr overview suggests a solution that 
> is hinted in the
> > charter.
> > 
> > The question I have is if basing the validation of 
> ownership of the PSTN
> > number can only be based on an actual PSTN call or does the 
> charter allow
> > also other ways to validate the ownership of an E.164 
> number and can this
> > number be only the PSTN phone number or can it be other 
> E.164 allocated
> > without an attached PSTN capability. 
> > 
> > The proposed charter as I read it limits the scope to the 
> case where the
> > same number is used as the PSTN and SIP number. Did I 
> understand correctly?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Roni Even
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:55 PM
> >> To: Roni Even
> >> Cc: 'DISPATCH list'
> >> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 2 - PSTN?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm having a real hard time actually understand what you 
> are objecting
> >> too. More  inline ...
> >>
> >> On Jun 16, 2010, at 12:22 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I read the charter and the listed drafts. I have no 
> problem with the
> >> first
> >>> two paragraph of the charter
> >>>
> >>> "There are two globally deployed address spaces for communications
> >> that more
> >>> than a billion people use on a daily basis. They are phone numbers
> >> and DNS
> >>> rooted address such as web servers and email addresses. The inter-
> >> domain
> >>> signaling design of SIP is primarily designed for email style
> >> addresses yet
> >>> a large percentage of SIP deployments mostly use phone numbers for
> >>> identifying users. The goal of this working group is to 
> enable inter-
> >> domains
> >>> communications over the internet, using protocol such as 
> SIP, while
> >> still
> >>> allowing people to use phone numbers to identify the 
> person they wish
> >> to
> >>> communicate with.
> >>>
> >>> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer
> >> based
> >>> approach to finding domains that claim to be responsible 
> for a given
> >> phone
> >>> number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable likelihood
> >> that a
> >>> given domain actually is responsible for the phone number."
> >>>
> >>> I have a concern about using PSTN infrastructure for the
> >> reachability. My
> >>> understanding so far was that SIP is trying to provide a 
> new way for
> >> end to
> >>> end communication that will replace the existing circuit switch
> >>> infrastructure. This proposal says that the way to 
> achieve end to end
> >>> connectivity requires to have an end to end PSTN frastructure.
> >> No this proposal says one of the way we can make PSTN 
> address usable in
> >> inter domain SIP is this. Clearly this approach would no longer be
> >> valid when the PSTN was gone but by that point, presumably 
> people would
> >> be using more internet style address in SIP. Keep in mind the only
> >> thing this work is trying to solve is mapping a PSTN address to a
> >> internet address. When the PSTN is gone, that problem goes with it.
> >> However the PSTN is far from gone - if I had to bet, I 
> would guess that
> >> phone numbers were around longer than v6 addresses (and than email
> >> style address outlive them both). The issue is phone 
> numbers are used
> >> by humans which makes them very hard to transition off of 
> while things
> >> like v6 addresses are easier to transition off of as they 
> are come and
> >> go with the technologies that use them. My point being all these
> >> addresses are around for a long time and the IETF works on 
> standards to
> >> help transition and interwork between them. The Telegram 
> service was
> >> emulated on top of ot
> >>  her technologies long after it had been supplanted by fax 
> - the PSTN
> >> will be similar.
> >>
> >>> The third paragraph is talking about validation using 
> PSTN calls. I
> >> think
> >>> that we can look at validation of number ownership but should say
> >> that
> >>> requiring PSTN calls to do it is not the recommended approach.
> >>> This will
> >>> allow managing of PSTN numbers not in the scope of PSTN
> >> infrastructure. Even
> >>> the PSTN network is using external protocol like SS7 to 
> route calls
> >> using
> >>> databases for achieving reachability so why not say we can use
> >> similar
> >>> infrastructure that will be IP based.
> >> We did standardize and IP based database approach - it's 
> called public
> >> ENUM. However, from a practical point of view the only people that
> >> could do the validations for ENUM are the carriers that have every
> >> business incentive to not do it. Regulators do not have the right
> >> incentives to regulate it into existence. VIPR on the 
> other hand only
> >> requires carriers to route calls. Routing calls is 
> something they do
> >> today, it is in their business interest so they will 
> likely continue
> >> doing it, and the regulation around common carriage often 
> require them
> >> to route calls. Both the existing regulations and 
> economics favor that
> >> the carriers will do what is needed to enable a solution 
> that leverages
> >> the PSTN for validation.
> >>
> >>> I can understand this as a temporary solution but not as 
> a standard
> >>> developed by the IETF.
> >> How temporary do you think the PSTN is? How many years?  
> Do you think
> >> we should not be doing standards for WG like MARTINI that only WG
> >> document limited itself to phone numbers? Should we not 
> have standards
> >> about SIP / PSTN interoperability? I don't hear you 
> objecting to any of
> >> the other work we do hat is "temporary" in the sense it is 
> only useful
> >> as long as the PSTN is around.
> >>
> >> Seriously, I read this and just feel like you are grasping 
> at straws
> >> for something to objet to since this proposal came from Cisco.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Roni Even
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dispatch mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   SkypeID: jdrosen
> Chief Technology Strategist                    Mobile: +1 
> [phone]
> Skype                                          SkypeIn: +1 
> [phone]
> [e-mail]                              http://www.skype.com
> [e-mail]                            http://www.jdrosen.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>