Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:10:33 -0500

Maybe that could be made more explicit.  It makes sense now, but I didn't
"get" that aspect of it from the actual document

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]]

Hennings SIPPING draft is for SIP and only SIP and is (i believe) an
official output of SIPPING wg.  If down the line one were to come up
with some additional IEPREP-related effort for something like MEGACO, or
some other form of telephony signaling, then this document would apply.
In addition, Hennings document does not discuss accounting -- nor should
it.  And yes, there is overlap in the requirements topics between this
draft and Hennings.

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:50:19 +0000

> Maybe I am not clear about what goes in the "telephony requirements" and
> what goes in the "framework".  For instance, the framework document
> talks quite clearly about "high probability of call completion".  That
> would seem to be an appropriate application "IP Telephony Requirement."
> What am I missing?

the framework document discusses high probability as an objective, and
in particular a default position with respect to Policy.  It also goes
on to state that Policy can be used to basically over-ride probability
and use pre-emption (please excuse the hand waving with respect to
mechanisms and how this is deployed -- i assume at gateways or servers
that retain application level state of a 'call').

now, if as you suggest "high probability of call completion" is a
requirement, in what form should it be (Must?, Should?)?  And does this
adversely affect efforts like MLPP where pre-emption (as opposed to
probability) is a requirement?

this is why it is easier for us to work with a specific suggested
articulation of a requirement than just the general subject of
"high probability call completion is a requirement".

> Maybe that could be made more explicit.  It makes sense now, but I
> didn't "get" that aspect of it from the actual document

i could add some verbage to this affect of distinguishing the telephony
requirements from the SIPPING document.  it didn't seem necessary
at the time given that the documents were products of separate
groups with separate scopes/charter.  how do the chairs (and co-author)
feel?

-ken