Re: [Sipping] Load control event package

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 31 July 2008 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099FE3A6AA2; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAED3A63CB for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntVSgLEgEujZ for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817F43A6A71 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-130-129-19-238.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.19.238]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m6VCd92S026563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:39:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <14239A49-B642-4BEA-8B16-170A06793FB3@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
To: "Phelan, Tom" <tphelan@sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <97D8957C5565BB41912C3F958914C49F05F4E7CF@sonusmail06.sonusnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:39:06 -0400
References: <97D8957C5565BB41912C3F958914C49F05F4E7CF@sonusmail06.sonusnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 128.59.29.8
Cc: sipping@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Load control event package
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

We are trying to address both content and distribution; both need to  
be made more concrete as the draft matures.

It would certainly be helpful to learn from the PSTN experience  
related to load filters. References or brief descriptions would be  
appreciated.

I agree that cross-domain distribution may not work in all cases, but  
I would claim that it can work in many semi-friendly environments  
(e.g., enterprise connected to service provider). Also, unlike in the  
PSTN, we would want to involve various edge proxies and maybe even  
user agents, so a distribution mechanism is required.

Henning

On Jul 28, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> The points I was going to bring up when we cut off the queue were:
>
> Is the purpose of this package to describe the kinds of filters that  
> can
> be communicated or the mechanisms for communicating or both?
>
> Assuming that it's about the kinds of filters -- the PSTN uses a
> "standard" set of these sorts of things.  There are a handful or so of
> defined filters such as CANT (CANcel To), CANF (Cancel From), SKIP,  
> and
> a few others.  If we define filters I think they should not be  
> trivially
> different from these.  If something new or different is needed, so be
> it, but there needs to be good reasons for the differences.
>
> Assuming it's about distributing the filters -- I'll note that as  
> far as
> I know the PSTN doesn't define how to distribute the filters.  Mostly
> it's done through switch-by-switch manual configuration, I believe.  I
> think some automatic distribution might be desirable, but we should
> watch out for complexity-versus-benefit tradeoffs.  The point was  
> raised
> that, due to trust issues, it's unlikely that cross-domain  
> communication
> will be welcomed, and that will limit the usefulness of automatic
> distribution.
>
> Tom P.
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www.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 mailing list  https://www.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