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

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

>  
>  Huh.  So we need to bound the data being exchanged - got that.  But
>  the tricky part about this is picking what data now, without yet
>  getting into the arguments of how this will work.  

Well at this stage of WG formation the issue for the AD's is that we not
attempt to boil the ocean only select a range of SED Data types necessary to
establish a session aka the baby steps.  Of course as we get into the weeds
here we may find other things that are important. What I suspect is equally
important for the charter is to list what is to be specifically excluded,
such as rating information. What else PKI? 

For example, the
>  type of "SED" data described in section 3.3 of terminology draft is
>  not that high on the list of things I would expect to be exchanged or
>  resolved by a LUF or LRF query.
>  
>  Well... that's not totally true, but it's not sufficient data to make
>  peering work at the SBE-SBE connection level, and some of those
>  particular connection-specific details frankly aren't dynamic that way
>  (ie, per route) and probably shouldn't/couldn't be.
>  
>  What about something more like:

This is a excellent list BTW.


>  
>     Session Establishment Data, or SED, is the data used to route a
>  call
>     to the next hop domain's ingress point, on its way to the called
>     terminating domain. A domain's ingress point can be thought of as
>  the
>     location derived from the NAPTR/SRV/A record [1] that resulted from
>     the resolution of the SIP URI.
>  
>     More specifically, the SED is the set of parameters that the local
>     SSP needs to complete the call, through its egress SBE's, and may
>     include:

Number ranges?

>  
>       . A destination SIP/SIPS/TEL URI
>  
>       . A SIP next-hop/next-hop-group to send the request to, possibly
>         including one or more of the following:
>  
>            o  Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
>  
>            o  Trunk Group and Context (IPTEL WG)
>  
>            o  Learned/static SIP Route headers for the peer SSP
>  
>       . A resolved terminating domain identifier, which may include:
>  
>            o  The terminating domain identified as a Domain Name
>  
>            o  The terminating domain identified as an SSP-ID
>  
>            o  One or more parameters indicating ported number
>  resolution
>  
>       . Optional resource control parameters such as
>  
>            o  Resource priority value(s) for the call
>  
>            o  Geographic or topological identifiers
>  
>  
>  -hadriel
>  
>  
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  >
>  > Basically the subject headers are sufficient for what we should be
>  looking
>  > at. But with specific exclusions... rating information, for
>  instance,
>  > should
>  > explicitly be excluded from a first pass at a WG charter.
>  >
>  > *****************
>  >
>  > 3.3. Session Establishment Data
>  >
>  >    Session Establishment Data, or SED, is the data used to route a
>  call
>  >    to the next hop associated with the called domain's ingress
>  point. A
>  >    domain's ingress point can be thought of as the location derived
>  from
>  >    the NAPTR/SRV/A record [1] that resulted from the resolution of
>  the
>  >    SIP URI.
>  >
>  >    More specifically, the SED is the set of parameters that the
>  outgoing
>  >    SBEs need to complete the call, and may include:
>  >
>  >      . A destination SIP URI
>  >
>  >      . A SIP proxy or ingress SBE to send the INVITE to, including
>  >
>  >           o  Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
>  >
>  >           o  Port
>  >
>  >           o  Transport Protocol (UDP/TCP/TLS [9/10/11])
>  >
>  >      . Security Parameters, including
>  >
>  >           o  TLS certificate to use
>  >
>  >           o  TLS certificate to expect
>  >
>  >           o  TLS certificate verification setting
>  >
>  >      . Optional resource control parameters such as
>  >
>  >           o  Limits on the total number of call initiations to a
>  peer
>  >
>  >           o  Limits on SIP transactions/second
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > >  --Daryl
>  > >
>  > >  -----Original Message-----
>  > >  From: [e-mail] [mailto:peppermint-
>  [e-mail]]
>  > >  On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
>  > >  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:25 AM
>  > >  To: 'Hadriel Kaplan'; 'Otmar Lendl'; [e-mail]
>  > >  Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments
>  please.
>  > >
>  > >  Thank you Hadriel.
>  > >
>  > >  Now after some conversations with our AD, I think we are in good
>  shape
>  > >  with the charter as its currently written including the rename.
>  > >
>  > >  There is some clarification in the text I'll fix however there is
>  a
>  > >  strong suggestion that that we specify a more detailed list of
>  SED
>  > >  data
>  > >  to be addressed. That means expanding out this sentence below
>  > >  somewhat.
>  > >  We don't need a exhaustive list only a list that sufficiently
>  bounds
>  > >  the
>  > >  work to be undertaken. In other words, the AD don't want us
>  wandering
>  > >  off the reservation.
>  > >
>  > >  "Typical SED 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."
>  > >
>  > >  Anyone want to suggest some text?
>  > >
>  > >  >  -----Original Message-----
>  > >  >  From: [e-mail]
>  > >  > [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  > >  >  On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
>  > >  >  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:19 AM
>  > >  >  To: Otmar Lendl; [e-mail]
>  > >  >  Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments
>  > >  please.
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  Hi Otmar,
>  > >  >  I don't disagree with some or many of our points, but I don't
>  think
>  > >  > we  need to hash them out for the charter.  I think we can
>  discuss
>  > >  > these  in the actual WG, after the charter is approved.
>  Nothing in
>  > >  > the  charter limits our ability to do that as far as I can
>  tell.
>  > >  > (right?)
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  -hadriel
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  > -----Original Message-----
>  > >  >  > From: [e-mail] [mailto:peppermint-
>  > >  > [e-mail]] On  > Behalf Of Otmar Lendl  > Sent: Tuesday,
>  > >  April
>  > >  > 22, 2008 10:45 AM  > To: [e-mail]  > Subject: Re:
>  > >  > [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > On 2008/04/21 20:04, Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>  > >  >  > > >
>  > >  >  > > >  > > These administrative domains may be of any
>  practical
>  > >  size
>  > >
>  > >  > and  > > >  could be any type of SSP, such as recognized
>  telephony
>  > >  > carriers,  > > enterprises,  > > >  end- user  > > >  > > >
>  groups,
>  > >  or
>  > >
>  > >  > Federations.
>  > >  >  > > >  > >
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > > >  I think we have a problem here. IMHO we should not mix
>  > >  single
>  > >
>  > >  > SSPs  > > >  (carriers, enterprises) with groups of SSPs
>  > >  > (federations). This  > > >  will bite us when doing the
>  protocol
>  > >  > design.
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > > Why will this bit us?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Because a SSP can be a member of multiple federations. Now,
>  if
>  > >  you
>  > >
>  > >  > plan  > to build a registry similar to a LERG/NPAC database,
>  then
>  > >  > you'll  have to  > deal with multiple federations inserting
>  data
>  > >  about
>  > >
>  > >  > the same  numbers.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > That's the point where the registry moves from a store of
>  > >  > authoritative  > information of "who owns a number" and perhaps
>  > >  "what
>  > >  > is the URI for  the  > number" to a distribution mechanism of
>  > >  routing
>  > >  > announcements, where  > there can be multiple possible records
>  > >  > (=routes) per destination.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > This has a profound impact on the overall design. Imagine
>  that a
>  > >  > domain  > registry allows the provisioning of records
>  concerning a
>  > >  > domain by  > multiple registrars at the same time. Yes, it's
>  > >  possible
>  > >  > to build  > a system based on this premise, but we need to make
>  this
>  > >  > explicit.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > > >  > I don't think that sentence restricts it, since it
>  says
>  > >  > "could  > > >  > be" and we can later decide to restrict it
>  further,
>  > >  > but yeah  it's  > > >  > weird to think of a Federation as
>  being an
>  > >  > SSP.
>  > >  >  > > >
>  > >  >  > > >  Then let's take "federations" out of this definition
>  NOW.
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > > I'm not convinced this is a problem. Frankly its splitting
>  > >  hairs
>  > >
>  > >  > > > on terminology. I don't understand why a federations could
>  not
>  > >  be
>  > >
>  > >  > > > considered a SSP? But if there is consensus on taking it
>  out ..
>  > >  >  OK.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > A federation is defined as a set of SSPs.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Any terminology where "X" and "set of X" is of the same type
>  is
>  > >  >
>  > >  > likely to be flawed. (e.g. a "a flock of birds" cannot be a
>  "bird")
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >  > > > The notion of 'a registry' is well understood in this
>  context.
>  > >  >  Namely a
>  > >  >  > > "trusted source of data" which multiple SSP internally or
>  > >  > externally may  > > draw data from. Instead of SSP bi-laterally
>  > >  > exchanging data, which  is  > OK,  > > SSP could use a registry
>  to
>  > >  > aggregate their data for re-  distribution. No  > > different
>  from
>  > >  > Domain Name operations or Centralized Numbering  Databases  > >
>  like
>  > >  > the NPAC or the UK NICC.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Fine. Then what about describing this in the charter
>  properly.
>  > >  e.g.
>  > >  >  by
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  >  Administrative domains may exchange data directly between
>  each
>  > >  > other  >  or might use an external registry (perhaps operated
>  by a
>  > >  >  federation)
>  > >  >  >  to aggregate data from multiple administrative domains into
>  >
>  > >  a
>  > >  > single view.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > > A registry may be the 'trusted source of data' internal to
>  the
>  > >  > network  > as  > > well that redistributes data to local
>  databases
>  > >  or
>  > >  > caches. This is  the  > way  > > the world works today in phone
>  > >  > networks.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > <tongue in cheek>
>  > >  >  > So the aim of peppermint^Wdrinks is to move the PSTN
>  thinking and
>  > >  > > databases into an IP based setting? Will this be anything
>  more
>  > >  than
>  > >
>  > >  > just  > porting the concepts behind LERG/NPAC/NICC/... to SIP?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Will there be any innovation in call routing, or are we just
>  > >  > replacing  > aging provisioning protocols with new ones, while
>  > >  > retaining the  > dependency on unloved fat registries?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > As we're saying good-bye to the end2end principle for VoIP
>  > >  routing,
>  > >
>  > >  > > is falling back to the PSTN way of routing calls really the
>  path
>  > >  >
>  > >  > the IETF should be choosing?
>  > >  >  > </t-i-c>
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Other open questions:
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > * Will DRINKS just consider "push" style provisioning
>  protocols,
>  > >  >  >   or will DRINKS also look at on-demand lookup protocols
>  towards
>  > >  >  >   these registries?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > * Speermint has separated out the LUF (who owns the
>  destination?)
>  > >  >  >   from the LRF (What's my SED towards the destination
>  network?).
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  >   Given the fact that DRINKS is supposed to build upon
>  speermint,
>  > >  >  >   can you make clear whether DRINKS is about the LUF or the
>  LRF?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  >   Or are we mixing up these things *again*?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > > >  > > That is sorely missing in speermint.
>  > >  >  > > >  >
>  > >  >  > > >  > Isn't that Speermint's role to do?  (I'm not clear on
>  that
>  > >  >  either)
>  > >  >  > > >
>  > >  >  > > >  Do you see such an item in the speermint milestones? I
>  > >  don't.
>  > >  >  > > >
>  > >  >  > > >  IMHO we need something like RFC 1034 for the whole
>  speermint
>  > >  /
>  > >
>  > >  > > > >  peppermint setup.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > > Well Hadriel is right ... that is a Speermint issue.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > So you want to define a set protocols without having a
>  reference
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >  > scenario against which to test whether the protocols do what we
>  > >  want?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > Good plan.
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > As it has worked so brilliantly for speermint, we have to
>  > >  replicate
>  > >
>  > >  > > it in DRINKs as well, don't we?
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > /ol
>  > >  >  > --
>  > >  >  > // Otmar Lendl <[e-mail]>, T: [phone] - 33, F: -
>  933  >
>  > >  > // nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H
>  > //
>  > >  > http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg  >
>  > >  > _______________________________________________
>  > >  >  > PEPPERMINT mailing list
>  > >  >  > [e-mail]
>  > >  >  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
>  > >  >  _______________________________________________
>  > >  >  PEPPERMINT mailing list
>  > >  >  [e-mail]
>  > >  >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
>  > >
>  > >  _______________________________________________
>  > >  PEPPERMINT mailing list
>  > >  [e-mail]
>  > >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

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