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

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

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:[e-mail]]
>  Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:02 AM
>  To: Hadriel Kaplan; Richard Shockey; Dwight, Timothy M (Tim); Daryl
>  Malas; Otmar Lendl; [e-mail]
>  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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
>  Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:45 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey; 'Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)'; 'Daryl Malas'; 'Otmar
>  Lendl'; [e-mail]
>  Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.
>  
>  
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  >
>  > 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
>  [e-mail]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

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