Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.

Richard,

It is precisely because this is a bounding exercise, and specifically a
bound placed on potential solutions, that this is a concern.  We are
trying to define the solution before defining the problem.  

Basically I find this debate contradictory.  If the text starting
"Typical SED data types might include..." below is truly meant only as
examples that might or might not be part of the eventual solution
developed by the WG, then it doesn't bound squat.  So since its
inclusion is controversial, and it doesn't accomplish anything, let's
delete it and declare victory.  If on the other hand its intent is to
function on a bound on potential solutions, then it's disingenuous to
refer to it as "Typical" and say it "might" include... more honest words
would be something like "the WG will be strongly incented to use the
following data model...".  To which I would object.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@shockey.us] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:31 AM
> To: 'PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP'; 'Hadriel Kaplan'; Dwight, 
> Timothy M (Tim); 'Daryl Malas'; 'Otmar Lendl'; peppermint@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.
> 
> I think we are all talking past each other here .. this is a 
> charter.  This
> is about what we might do not what we will do.. This is a bounding
> excersise.
> 
> What I have now is 
> 
> **************
> 
> More specifically, DRINKS will provide details of how Session 
> Establishment
> Data (SED) is collected, what comprises SED, how SED should be used to
> properly identify an optimal path to a destination SIP user 
> agent (UA), and
> the secure manners in which SED and the SIP session data is exchanged
> between the peering functions.
> 
> 
> Typical SED data types might include:
> 
> + Routes
>      - Destination SIP/SIPS/TEL URI Egress and Ingress Routes
>      - Relevant route names, identifiers, and services
>      - NAPTR context and associations
>      - PSTN database information
> 
> + Service Areas
>      - Individual, ranges, or groups of ENUMservice identifiers
>      - Route associations
> 
> + Treatment Profiles
>      - Priority
>      - Location
> 
> Potential SED Data types not in scope will be session rating or other
> billing or pricing information between SSP's
> 
> **************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP [mailto:ppfautz@att.com]
> >  Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:02 AM
> >  To: Hadriel Kaplan; Richard Shockey; Dwight, Timothy M (Tim); Daryl
> >  Malas; Otmar Lendl; peppermint@ietf.org
> >  Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter 
> ..comments please.
> >  
> >  Putting the Service Area concept in the charter still gives me
> >  heartburn. If Drinks is about more than ESPP that doesn't 
> make sense.
> >  If
> >  you want to introduce the concept of some aggregate later, after
> >  robust
> >  discussion, fine. Not all of us are ready to drink the kool-aid.
> >  
> >  
> >  Penn Pfautz
> >  
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:peppermint-bounces@ietf.org]
> >  On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> >  Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:45 PM
> >  To: Richard Shockey; 'Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)'; 'Daryl 
> Malas'; 'Otmar
> >  Lendl'; peppermint@ietf.org
> >  Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter 
> ..comments please.
> >  
> >  
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@shockey.us]
> >  >
> >  > No one is proposing a solution. We are describing  that we do not
> >  propose
> >  > exchanging data on Collateralized Debt Instruments and Mortgage
> >  Interest
> >  > Swaps among SSP's
> >  
> >  Sure, I'm all in favor of getting a charter approved 
> post-haste.  Even
> >  if it means my ideas for "Mortgage Interest eXchanges" 
> (MIX) will have
> >  to wait for a charter update.  (too bad too, 'cause a 
> draft-drinks-mix
> >  would have been a recipe for success in my opinion)
> >  
> >  But seriously, how "detailed" do we need to be in the charter
> >  regarding
> >  this data?  I think Daryl's proposed data with some minor nits is
> >  broad
> >  enough not to cause heartburn later, while not letting us 
> get drunk in
> >  the possibilities. :)
> >  
> >  How about this:
> >  
> >  [begin]
> >  The scope will be limited to defining the following 
> criteria necessary
> >  for a SSP to respond with the necessary Session Establishment Data
> >  (SED)
> >  for both internal and external purposes:
> >  
> >          + Routes
> >                  - Destination SIP/SIPS/TEL URI Egress and Ingress
> >  Routes
> >                  - Relevant route names, identifiers, and services
> >                  - Attributes affecting route selection
> >          + Service Areas
> >                  - Individual, ranges, or groups of user-agent
> >  identifiers
> >                  - Route-to-service-area associations
> >          + Treatment Profiles
> >                  - Priority
> >                  - Location
> >  
> >  The mechanism(s) chosen should be extensible, in case additional
> >  criteria are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of the WG in the
> >  future.
> >  [end]
> >  
> >  -hadriel
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  PEPPERMINT mailing list
> >  PEPPERMINT@ietf.org
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
PEPPERMINT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint