Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni,

Comments inline below and some snipping of the thread.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Mary,
> When I read the charter it is not clear why from the first paragraph you
> deduct the second paragraph.
> If the first paragraph will say
> " The goal of this working group is to enable inter-domain communications
> over the Internet, using protocols such as SIP, while still allowing people
> to use the called person assigned circuit switch phone number for
> identifying the person with whom they wish to communicate. "
> It may look clearer.
[MB] We could change "phone number" to "called person assigned circuit switch
phone number for identifying the person", but I think that "phone
number" is well
understood to be exactly what you want to describe it as.  [/MB]

>
> Still this is based on the assumption that using other ways to assign and
> authenticate SIP phone numbers using central databases is not catching up
> because the carriers object to implement it and not due to any other reason
> like preferences of enterprises IT to use PSTN for calls because of better
> quality of service and manageability.
[MB] I'm not certain (personally) that the latter preferences you note
are as prevalent as you might suggest. I would still contend that the
larger issue is the former. However, if other folks share this
concern, we can certainly add that as well - it reflects equally as
being a non-technical reason for widespread implementation [/MB]
>
> Roni Even
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of Mary Barnes
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:24 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> The term peer to peer is intended to exclude mechanisms that would use
>> a central repository for the information:  This was discussed in an
>> earlier thread:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg02027.html
>>
>> In one sense it is a solution, however, in another sense it is reusing
>> SIP related functionality defined in RAI and thus is in a similar vein
>> as specifying the use of SIP in a charter.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mary.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Clarification question. What exactly means 'peer to peer based
>> approach'
>> > and what kind of approaches are excluded by having this in the
>> charter.
>> > Does 'approach' mean solution? If so why does a specific type of
>> > solution need to be agreed in the charter, while all we have at hand
>> at
>> > this point are individual contribution I-Ds that describe the
>> 'problem
>> > statement and some possible starting points for solutions'?
>> >
>> > Thanks and Regards,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail]
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:38 PM
>> >> To: DISPATCH
>> >> Subject: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>