Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

["Jan Seedorf" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Terry,

> I will review the last set of documents and will send my comments.. They may
> not be as technical but they come from an operation perspective.
Excellent, we are looking forward to your comments and would appreciate any feedback you have for our draft:

- SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-02)

 - Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Terry Martin
> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 19:36
> To: Mike Hammer (hmmr); Daryl Malas; Peterson, Jon; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc
> 
> I have been following this from the beginning and I work with a lot of
> telephone companies and VoIP provides and feel what your working is key to how
> islands of carriers are going to be communicating.
> 
> 
> 
> I will review the last set of documents and will send my comments.. They may
> not be as technical but they come from an operation perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your work
> 
> 
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Mike Hammer (hmmr)
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: Daryl Malas; Peterson, Jon; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with that approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Daryl Malas
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:54 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc
> 
> 
> 
> Jon et. al,
> 
> I agree we should finish the architecture document.  If members of this
> mailing list and the working group think it requires greater definition around
> certain functions, then please contribute.  I would like to suggest we focus
> on two drafts to wrap up in Maastricht:
> 
> Architecture
> Security
> 
> After completing these two drafts, we shut down the working group by Beijing.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daryl
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/27/10 12:50 PM, "Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> While all IETF working groups look forward to the day they can close their
> doors, I'm not sure I'd be happy to see SPEERMINT make its final bow without
> completing the architecture document.
> 
> I believe that in the LUF/LRF distinction, the SPEERMINT group has captured an
> idea that is valuable, and moreover one which, as the original charter of this
> group intended, identifies a reality of deployments that the standards
> community had previously ignored. It explodes the conceit that a one-step
> resolution process, just transforming a telephone number into a "global" URI,
> will address the needs of the sort of peering communities this group examines.
> While the distinction between LUF and LRF is not a precise one, and has never
> been immensely well understood, I contend that it is valuable nonetheless, and
> that if confusion about the idea prompts us to discard the work in SPEERMINT,
> I have no reason to expect anything different to happen in DRINKS or any other
> group that must operate on these same architectures. I don't think the
> sketches in the terminology draft suffice as a foundation for that work.
> 
> Finishing the architecture document is not solving world hunger. While
> everything in the IETF takes much longer than you'd imagine, I don't think
> this has to be one or two years out - I think it would be reasonable to make a
> final push to clear up the snags in the document, and just set a deadline by
> which this group will emit it as an Informational. It doesn't have to be
> perfect, it just has to be able to serve as the framework for the subsequent
> discussions in DRINKS and other future arenas. I think this is an an
> achievable, and relatively honorable, way to round up the work that the
> SPEERMINT charter originally laid out.
> 
> If there is enough energy here for one last jaunt, I'd be happy to assist that
> effort in any capacity.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.