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