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

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:59 -0500

This document seems a mere shadow of its former self.  I thought this was
supposed to be the MORE specific document, but all the specificity (like
references to "call admission") has been removed.  There seems to be little
here that is not also covered by the "General Requirements" document, or
Henning's SIPPING document.

Section 3 says it relates only to "Telephony Signaling".  I seems to me that
is already covered by Henning's document.  Is there any reason we can't put
in "requirements" (or goals, or objectives, or desires) for reduced blocking
probability, or increased admission probability  for calls (since we are
talking telephony specifically, "calls" ARE defined at the application
level) within the IP part of the network?  This would parallel the "Network
Functionality" section of the General Requirements, and make them specific
to  Telephony.

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:39 AM
To: Ieprep (E-mail)
Cc: 'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)
Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS

This message announces WG last call for 
IP Telephony Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service
(draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-01.txt).  
The intension is for this draft to
have informational RFC status.

The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:10:41 +0000

> This document seems a mere shadow of its former self.  I thought this
> was supposed to be the MORE specific document, but all the specificity
> (like references to "call admission") has been removed.  There seems to
> be little here that is not also covered by the "General Requirements"
> document, or Henning's SIPPING document.

well, the draft was written from scratch, so it is not based on previous
efforts, nor a continuation of other drafts.  Otherwise, we would have
add additional authors listed.  is there a specific draft you had in mind?

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.

> Section 3 says it relates only to "Telephony Signaling".  I seems to
> me that is already covered by Henning's document.  Is there any reason
> we can't put in "requirements" (or goals, or objectives, or desires)
> for reduced blocking probability, or increased admission probability
> for calls (since we are talking telephony specifically, "calls" ARE
> defined at the application level) within the IP part of the network?
> This would parallel the "Network Functionality" section of the General
> Requirements, and make them specific to Telephony.

well, you've stated a lot in the above.  we can add requirements, but
outside of the discussion on accounting, we haven't received any other
specific requests.  

if we take out the part in the "(..)", then no.  the scope of the 
document states that it refers to IP telephony from the perspective
of an end-to-end application -- and not the IP part of the network.
in addition we state that the document is an extension of the General
requirements, hence there isn't a need to restate those requirements.

from these application requirements, we can then slide into the
Framework document that presents a more specific set of goals and
objectives.

-ken

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:42:39 +0000

one thing i wanted to add in case i wasn't clear in my last message.  i
have no objections to adding a item on application level admission
control in the Telephony Requirements document.  but it would be
easier to articulate something if you had a specific item in mind.
Perhaps Mike Pierce has a thought on the subject.

-ken