Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-cons-rqts-00.txt
"PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz@att.com> Mon, 07 July 2008 19:06 UTC
Return-Path: <peppermint-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: peppermint-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-peppermint-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2303A6A1C; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: peppermint@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: peppermint@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238883A6A1C for <peppermint@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 mCj7gqmxxtsj for <peppermint@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838A73A6AC4 for <peppermint@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: ppfautz@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1215457524!11212477!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 15553 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2008 19:05:27 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-15.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Jul 2008 19:05:27 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m67J4tWC022726 for <peppermint@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:05:18 -0400
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.15]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m67J48hT022075 for <peppermint@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:04:40 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:04:27 -0400
Message-ID: <217D89990A7AE44ABBC261434F79372859BF06@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080707170002.03A5E3A68D7@core3.amsl.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-cons-rqts-00.txt
thread-index: AcjgV3vwxY5USGDiTWWbSz3+E5tcqgAChzFw
References: <20080707170002.03A5E3A68D7@core3.amsl.com>
From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz@att.com>
To: peppermint@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-cons-rqts-00.txt
X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection <peppermint.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint>, <mailto:peppermint-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/peppermint>
List-Post: <mailto:peppermint@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:peppermint-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint>, <mailto:peppermint-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org
Some initial comments re this draft: 1. Section 3.1 Index/Key Data states that "for lookup information about the most specific prefix will be returned." While this might be desirable in some cases, I could image others where a larger set of records might be desired. It also seems out of scope for DRINKS since it speaks to retrieval rather than provisioning. 2. I'm troubled by the "first hop" "last hop" provider terminology in Section 3.2. The way it is used in this section seems to imply that there is some VSP closer to the end user than the VSP assigned the number prefix. This *might* be under some circumstances, e.g., where a non-facilities based provider obtains its numbers through wholesale, but is not the most general case. If multiple VSP records are allowed then it would seem some means of identifying which is which is required. 3. w/r/t number portability info (Section 3.2) carrier code is only one type of NP info employed in the PSTN. Some more general terminology should be employed. 4. Section 4 states that routing information is out of scope of the registry provisioning problem. I'm not sure I agree. In some arrangements routing information might well be expected to come from a Registry and so need to be provisioned. I believe a number of existing private registries provide routing information today. The information *might* be relatively dynamic but it might not. Perhaps I misunderstand how the term "routing information" is intended here. Penn Pfautz AT&T National Access Management +1-732-420-4962 _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
- Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-con… David Schwartz
- Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-con… Jean-Francois Mule
- Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-con… PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP
- [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-cons-rq… Internet-Drafts