Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

["Terry Martin" <[e-mail]>]

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.