Re: [RAI] [drinks] FW: Global Service Provider ID - draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Because SIP takes care of the rest.

This is about service providers BTW which could be a enterprise and yes one
of the use cases involves service providers that use E.164 identifiers.

The proven use case is here in North America. The numbering databases
contain service provider and ALT- service provider identification codes that
indicate the carrier of record or VNO for a particular number.

Routing transactions can occur if the SPID can be indentified at session
origination. Once the termination provider of the session can be indentified
( yes a carrier but it could be a enterprise etc)  the First hop proxy (
CSCF ) can make a trunk group decision based on some predetermined policy at
session origination.

Remember this?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-01

The result of this is  <cough cough>  bypass of traditional POTS / SS7 /
Class 5 garbage routing mechanisms and the maintance and integrity  of SIP
session IP end to end if possible, including advanced service delivery such
as HD voice etc. 

A Global form of this simple unique identifier does not exist and the IETF
is a good place to create a home for it.  Yes there will be some junk here
but its better to start fresh with a fixed length identifier. 

The other alternatives were a non starter. 

From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:33 AM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L; Sumanth Channabasappa; rai@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RAI] [drinks] FW: Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Re-,

Thank you for the clarification. 

But then what is the value of having a universal service identifier scheme
which is agnostic to the service context? 

If service identifiers are to be used in signalling protocols or used to
invoke services, then the service identifier should be bound to a given
service. FWIW, we have studied in the past the information template to be
filled in interconnection agreements (horizontal, Network Interconnection
Agreements or Service Interconnection Agreements) or in provisioning
agreements (vertical; Connectivity Provisioning Agreements or Service
Provisioning Agreements) but we didn't found at that time the need for a
universal identifier to be used in both vertical and horizontal
agreements/invocation protocols/etc (see
http://www.ist-agave.org/results/D1.1-final-public.pdf).

Cheers,

Med

  _____  

De : PFAUTZ, PENN L [mailto:pp3129@att.com] 
Envoyé : lundi 26 septembre 2011 15:56
À : Sumanth Channabasappa; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; rai@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [drinks] FW: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Dear Med,

The exception is that ITADs are not fixed length (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/trip-parameters/trip-parameters.xml) though
I agree they could be made so via a urn definition that formats the ITAD
integer. Given the 4B space fixed length would be 9 digits. The policy w/r/t
multiple assignments for an entity   is not explicitly stated as far as I
can tell.

Another issue that has been raised is whether, as applications may go beyond
telephony, we should be comfortable using something labeled as telephony.

Regards,

Penn Pfautz

AT&T Access Management

+1-732-420-4962

From: drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:39 AM
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Drinks@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [drinks] FW: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Folks,

The fwd was meant as an FYI, please provide comments on the RAI reflector
where this discussion is happening.

Sumanth -- as co-chair

On Sep 26, 2011, at 7:36 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

Dear Penn,

Apologies if this is already raised but  having a quick review of your
draft, it seems to me all the requirements you listed are met by the ITAD
number for VoIP service providers:

   o  They SHOULD be globally unique
   o  They SHOULD be numeric, at least 8 digits long
   o  They SHOULD be fixed length
   o  they SHOULD be available to any type of entity
   o  Entities SHOULD be able to obtain mulitple identifiers.
   o  Some range of identifiers SHOULD be reserved for internal entity
      usage.

Did I missed something?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Med

  _____  

De : drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
PFAUTZ, PENN L
Envoyé : vendredi 23 septembre 2011 21:00
À : Sumanth Channabasappa; Drinks@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [drinks] FW: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Thanks Sumanth.  And if folks think this SPID would be a useful thing to
have, please weigh in accordingly.

Penn Pfautz

AT&T Access Management

+1-732-420-4962

From: drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:58 PM
To: Drinks@ietf.org
Subject: [drinks] FW: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

I am forwarding this as an FYI. If you are interested in this discussion,
please check the rai discussion list. See:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai for archives and subscription.

- S

From: rai-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of PFAUTZ, PENN L
To: rai@ietf.org
Subject: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Following up on the discussion in dispatch at IETF 81
(www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/dispatch.txt) Id like to get some
discussion of   draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01 going.

The draft proposed IANA registration of a service provider ID (SPID) which
would have the following characteristics:

      Numeric ID, at least 8 digits long 

      Fixed length 

      Available to any type of entity 

      Entities able to obtain multiple identifiers. 

       Some range of identifiers reserved for internal usage

      Open registration by IANA

The minutes concluded:

      WG is in support of creating a URN for this. 

      Document(s) likely to be AD sponsored. 

      Discussion should move to RAI area list (as opposed to DRINKS or
DISPATCH). 

The outstanding issues seemed to be

1. Is a new resource assignment necessary for the URN or could an existing
one, Private Enterprise Numbers or ITADs be used with a URN defined to
provide a fixed length parameter as requested in the I-D?

2. Assuming a fixed length parameter will be used, whats the right length?

The I-D proposed a new resource, partly because the existing ones were
intended for other purposes and already had many registrations. Id also
note that PENs suggest a sub-delegation approach to assigning multiple SPIDs
to an entity (an entity gets one PEN assignment and can assign values
hierarchically below that (e.g. AT&T has PEN 74, and would assign 74.1,
74.2, etc). Because at least some of the service providers wanted to use
SPID to prefix E.164 numbers and others want to incorporate SPID in a domain
name, this would present issues. 

Penn Pfautz

AT&T Access Management

+1-732-420-4962