[VIPR] [ViPR] draft-jennings-vipr-overview-00, Clarification on Ticket verification
rob.maidhof@comcast.net Thu, 28 April 2011 16:46 UTC
Return-Path: <rob.maidhof@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0DCE06AF for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPOHJQNwcrso for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5957E0669 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.59]) by qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id d4ie1g0011GXsucAE4lzSw; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:45:59 +0000
Received: from sz0129.ev.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.26.193]) by omta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id d4ly1g00F49ylMG8U4lyNh; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:45:59 +0000
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:45:58 +0000
From: rob.maidhof@comcast.net
To: vipr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1892288606.4720447.1304009158854.JavaMail.root@sz0129a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <992624525.4719175.1304008066174.JavaMail.root@sz0129a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4720446_21834028.1304009158852"
X-Originating-IP: [71.229.140.2]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2431.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Mac)/6.0.5_GA_2427.RHEL4)
Subject: [VIPR] [ViPR] draft-jennings-vipr-overview-00, Clarification on Ticket verification
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:46:00 -0000
I was looking for some clarification on whether the intent is for the Border Element or Call Agent on the terminating side of the call to verify the ticket? For example, the last paragraph of section 8.4 page36, states that the terminating call agent verifies the ticket, then at the end of the paragraph it states that the call is then forwarded to the terminating call agent. Was the intent to say the BE verifies and then forwards to the CA? In relation to this, section 6.3 page 27 states that a responsibility of the BE is to perform ticket verification, while the call agent section 6.2 does not list this as a responsibility. Page 22 states that the CA performs ticket verification. I understand an individual network element could perform both CA and BE functions, if it is simply a terminology issue, perhaps we could structure the text to insure consistency. Rob
- [VIPR] [ViPR] draft-jennings-vipr-overview-00, Cl… rob.maidhof
- Re: [VIPR] [ViPR] draft-jennings-vipr-overview-00… Cullen Jennings