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

Do we have to determine the data model now?  This seems premature when
we've not yet considered use cases. 

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:peppermint-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:34 AM
> To: Daryl Malas; Richard Shockey; Otmar Lendl; peppermint@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:D.Malas@cablelabs.com]
> >
> > I recommend we further simplify:
> >
> > 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:
> 
> OK, so here you're defining the minimal data needed to be 
> exchanged by DRINKS, in order for an SSP to provide SED - right?
> 
> 
> >         + Routes
> >                 - Destination SIP/SIPS/TEL URI Egress and 
> Ingress Routes
> >                 - Relevant route names, identifiers, and services
> >                 - NAPTR context and associations
> 
> When you exchange data, it may be in the form of a NAPTR in 
> syntax and maybe even semantics, but it's not really a 
> "NAPTR" DNS entry - it just happens to be that you chose to 
> format the resultant route information in the form of a 
> NAPTR.  So I think the word "NAPTR" shouldn't be in the 
> charter's list of data to be exchanged.  We may just happen 
> to use that format in the end for the data, but there's 
> nothing about the data that demands it. (and in fact I 
> personally think it's confusing and misleading to be using 
> that specific format in the data exchange directly, but we 
> can argue about that later :)
> 
> 
> >         + Service Areas
> >                 - Individual, ranges, or groups of ENUMservice
> > identifiers
> >                 - Route associations
> 
> I don't know what a "Route association" is?
> 
> 
> >         + Treatment Profiles
> >                 - Priority
> >                 - Location
> 
> I note this doesn't directly include originating or source 
> information, which is fairly essential to SIP routing, 
> afaict.  Is that something you'd classify under "route 
> associations" or "treatment profiles", or do you specifically 
> not want that in the charter?
> 
> -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