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

If there is a problem with the term "Service Areas", then change it to
something else.  I am not hung up on that term.  It just seems to make
logical sense in my mind.  Call it "Non-descript pools of logical
identifiers that may provide value to a relative locale". :-)

IMO, I think the addition below is clear and provides relevant bounds
with which to work in.

--Daryl 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@shockey.us] 
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:31 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