[PEPPERMINT] Comparison of Requirements Documents
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Mon, 30 June 2008 19:08 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 62F553A6932; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:08:19 -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 A4BDF3A6932; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FliUulUV7W3y; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ogud.com (hlid.ogud.com [66.92.146.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849433A6903; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.200.209] (mail.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by ogud.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5UJ8IeI068941; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:08:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240801c48edd93a8e5@[10.31.200.209]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:08:15 -0400
To: peppermint@ietf.org, drinks@ietf.org
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 10.20.30.6
Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Comparison of Requirements Documents
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org
I've been taking a look at two requirements documents, the ESPP Requirements and the Consolidated Provisioning Statement. I realize (or have been told) that a new set of ESPP documents is coming out, so I'll avoid getting into specifics. The goal is to have a "Unified" (we've already used "Consolidated") requirements document for the WG. BTW, the documents I'm comparing are these: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mule-peppermint-espp-requirements-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-peppermint-consolidated-provisioning-problem-statement-00 This comparison list is not very detailed, I wanted to identify the topics that included in both and where the two requirements had different emphasis. I don't think there is any outright contradiction between the two. Both documents describe a protocol running over SOAP/XML, WDSL, TLS and HTTP and being easily integrated into the current provisioning systems. Both recognize that there a telephone number (E164) to URI mapping happening, with NAPTR as a major vehicle (but not sole vehicle). Both mention a need to make the transactions auditable, including logs. Consolidated mentions multiple kinds of sources of data, ESPP refers to multiple clients. This could be interpreted as an equivalent statement. ESPP explicitly states that operation is based on files (as opposed to records). (I'd question the file name requirements based on this, as well as a hard coded limit on the size limit.) ESPP describes designing an efficient protocol, i.e., being able to apply one set of data to many numbers. (But when I boiled the requirements down, I didn't see this idea - maybe it was in the protocol.) ESPP has a specific data model in mind (which is being discussed in recent mail), and a capacity of the order of the size of the PSTN number range(s). ESPP includes some protocol maintenance stuff (versioning numbers). Consolidated has requirements on the database being addressable (any element). Consolidated explicitly includes prefixs (for ranges) and min/max lengths. Consolidated explicitly mentions numbers being reassigned and the impact of that on database entries and responses. Consolidated requires dip indications, temporal validity, number "ownership" and other ancillary data. Consolidated requires a catchall record, a \1 shorthand. Consolidated has requirements on the transport as being end-to-end only (no caching) and having flow control. It's obvious that the two teams that developed the documents had different emphasis on what to include in a list or requirements. Even with the ESPP requirements document being rather mature (as well as being accompanied by a protocol specification), there is a need to combine the two documents. I don't believe that the result will be radically different from either, just more complete. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
- [PEPPERMINT] Comparison of Requirements Documents Edward Lewis
- Re: [PEPPERMINT] Comparison of Requirements Docum… Edward Lewis
- Re: [PEPPERMINT] Comparison of Requirements Docum… Jean-Francois Mule