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

["Richard Shockey" <[e-mail]>]

>  Richard,
>  
>  I do have one VERY serious problem with this revised charter.  If the
>  group name is changed to DRINKS, then I will have lost my opportunity
>  to submit an Internet-Draft titled "draft-york-peppermint-pattie"[1].
>  Although I suppose the new name does allow everyone to join in the
>  creative naming fun... I can just see... "draft-shockey-drinks-too-
>  many-sips"... "draft-bond-drinks-sip-shaken-not-stirred"... "draft-
>  kaplan-drinks-sips-with-no-identity-challenge"...

Alas this is true .. I will no longer be known a Peppermint Patty but only
as the Bartender, something I can professionally live with since in a
earlier life I was a professional in the field.

Again we must consider our overall obligations to the IETF for cute WG
naming which we both agree will inspire much inspired document naming and
hopefully some April 1 RFC's. Whatever it takes ...


>  
>  Seriously, it looks good overall and does make sense to change the
>  name.   I do like how the charter makes it clear how DRINKS relates to
>  ENUM and SPEERMINT.

Thanks are due not to me but to Daryl and Ken that did most of the heavy
lifting. I was only the charter editor, if a somewhat bad typist.

>  
>  Outside of the nits Hadriel already pointed out, I'll only add a few
>  points embedded with "DY>":
>  >
>  > The DRINKS working group is chartered with a scope that is
>  > orthogonal to
>  > SPEERMINT and ENUM.  The protocol work OF DRINKS will be designed to
>  > build
>  
>  DY> "OF" should be lowercase.

TKS ..will do ..

>  
>  > Typical data includes the mapping of phone numbers to URIs, policies
>  > surrounding admission to various points of network interconnection,
>  > and
>  > various other types of interconnect data.  In addition, there is a
>  > specific
>  > need for the exchange of such data between the Registry and various
>  > types of
>  > PSTN network databases.
>  
>  DY> Will you be changing this per Hadriel's comment to "a Registry"?

Again yes you are correct the proper term is to "a" registry.

>  
>  DY> Do you see the data to be exchanged to also include information
>  using in billing?

IMHO no .. that would be a charter stretch I personally believe the
AD's/IESG would not accept, at this time. Remember this is a new WG. The
first order of business is to produce results based on a limited set of
initial tasks. On the basis of initial WG success it is always possible to
build on success to take on other tasks the WG deems useful.


>  
>  DY> I see nothing in the charter about ensuring that the data is
>  exchanged securely between the various administrative domains but I
>  would assume this is a necessary requirement.  Is that just an
>  implicit assumption that security will be covered in the Requirements
>  document? (i.e. no explicit statement is necessary in the charter?)


A excellent point but all IETF WG documents have a explicit requirement to
define any security issues associated with the protocol being defined.
Therefore, as you point out, there is no explicit requirement to define
security requirements in the charter.


>  
>  Regards,
>  Dan
>  
>  [1] For those outside North America who have perhaps never sampled the
>  candy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Peppermint_Pattie
>  --
>  Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
>  Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [e-mail]
>  Phone: [phone]  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
>  Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
>  
>  Build voice applications based on open standards.
>  Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
>  
>  


_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint