[Sipping] Some more thoughts on draft-haluska-sipping-directory-assistance-01.txt
Dale.Worley@comcast.net Thu, 11 January 2007 19:18 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H55R3-0003h6-4I; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:18:01 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H55R1-0003cF-3y for sipping@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:59 -0500
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H55Qz-0008Eu-Oo for sipping@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:59 -0500
Received: from dragon.ariadne.com (dworley.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[24.34.79.42]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20070111191750m1200ak4jie>; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:17:56 +0000
Received: from dragon.ariadne.com (dragon.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.ariadne.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l0BJHnbM008977 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:49 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by dragon.ariadne.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id l0BJHmtb008973; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:48 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:48 -0500
Message-Id: <200701111917.l0BJHmtb008973@dragon.ariadne.com>
To: sipping@ietf.org
From: Dale.Worley@comcast.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86
Subject: [Sipping] Some more thoughts on draft-haluska-sipping-directory-assistance-01.txt
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
* This draft touches on a lot of interesting matters, many of which seem to be advances in the state of the art. This draft seems to intertwine at least 3 seperable issues: - the execution of an OIS service - the billing of an OIS service - determining that an abstract OIS request is such, and determining which OISP endpoint to route it to In the PSTN, these are tightly tied together, but I expect that in the SIP world, they will quickly become disaggregated. I think the draft would be more useful if these issues were identified for the reader and explicitly treated as separable. Of these, the execution of OIS services is probably the best-defined in current SIP practice. (Except for the case of wanting to re-route the caller's dialog to the OISP after the caller's UA completes a call to a specified third party -- I don't think there is current SIP CC for that operation.) * Is this draft intended to only apply to the IMS sub-world, or is it intended for broader applicability? This should be stated. * The range of business models considered seems to be quite narrow: There are several network scenarios which must be supported: Services are provided by the caller's home provider. Services are provided a third party provider which has direct SIP layer connectivity as well as business relationships with the caller's home provider. Services are provided a third party provider which has no direct SIP layer connectivity and no business relationships with the caller's home provider. For instance, consider "Services are provided a third party provider which has direct SIP layer connectivity but no business relationships with the caller's home provider. " and "Services are provided a third party provider which has no business relationships with the caller, but does have a business relationship with another third party provider which has a direct business relationship with the caller." And I expect a little thought could construct many other cases. Any proposed mechanisms should work in a broad range of business models. * On page 22: It is assumed that the right-hand side of the caller's SIP URI unambiguously defines the caller's home provider. I expect that this will not be true for long, even in "walled garden" environments -- For e-mail, businesses and even individuals have clamored for "vanity" domain names, and large commercial e-mail providers support such services. I expect that vanity SIP domain names will be popular from Day 1. And if there is any possibility that an organization's SIP service can be provided by multiple network providers, the SIP domain name will not be a reliable provider identification. (This will probably be true for all organizations with multiple physical locations.) It may be necessary to have the network assert a "network identity" for the caller which is bound to the network service provider *for this call*, and which is not the same as the caller's AOR or From header. This doesn't seem to be difficult, but has to be planned for. * The resolution of an OIS service request to the actual OISP is an interesting question and deserves more attention. Currently, the SIP caller accesses an OIS by a SIP URI that identifies the OSIP. But this draft assumes (without stating) that the caller specifies a URI that specifies the nature of the service without identifying what OISP should provide it, a URN rather than a URL. So there is (1) a space of URIs that provide such service identifications, and (2) a resolution process that converts these URIs to routable URIs (before the call escapes the initial SIP provider's network). This is a very interesting question, and as far as I know, there is no standardized architecture for providing such resolution. But this draft implies such an architecture without giving any of the details. * The draft refers to the OSIP querying the caller's UA to determine its capabilities. But it should also be able to query the network path to the caller's UA. For example, if the user has a combiled cellular/WiFi phone, depending on the connectivity mode, the available bandwidth to the phone may differ by a factor of 100. Indeed, even when using WiFi the bandwidth may vary, with a low rate when using a commercial "hotspot" and a higher rate when using the free Wifi in the office. This can probably be integrated into the QoS and bandwidth reservation needed for any truly demanding media stream. But it may be desirable to standardize how an OSIP accesses this information (for the series of links which connect it to the caller). Dale _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] Some more thoughts on draft-haluska-sip… Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sipping] Some more thoughts on draft-haluska… Haluska, John J
- Re: [Sipping] Some more thoughts on draft-haluska… Dale.Worley
- RE: [Sipping] Some more thoughts ondraft-haluska-… Henry Sinnreich