Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-iptel-trip-00.txt

From: KAMINSKI Alain <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:33:56 +0200

Some comments 

1. 
I fear people (like me :) ) might get confused with TRIP and GLP
relationship.

draft-ietf-iptel-gwloc-framework-05.txt has replaced in its text all "GLP"
by "TRIP".

But in this draft, TRIP is defined as an instance of GLP (as defined in 
draft-ietf-iptel-gwloc-framework-03).

I think it will be useful to harmonise inter-draft terms asap.

2. To my understanding, TRIP was meant to merge GLP and TBGP approaches in a
single protocol.

However, according to draft-ietf-iptel-glp-tbgp-01.txt :
"The primary function of a TBGP speaker in administrative domain A is 
to advertise to TBGP speakers in other administrative domains reachability 
information of:
        - PSTN destinations (black phones) via gateways in domain A,
        - IP destinations (e.g., H.323 terminals or SIP terminals) in
          domain A."

So it seems to me that TBGP is also covering location of IP destinations as
opposed to TRIP.

Is this difference still making TRIP and TBGP separate protocols ?

3.

A insignificant correction...

"3. Introduction
   The gateway location and call routing problem has been introduced in
   [1]. It is considered one of the most difficult problems in IP
telephony. "
                                    ^^^^

Have a nice day,

Alain

______________________________________
Alain KAMINSKI
Network Technology Engineer
WIN S.A.Rue Marie-Henriette, 60
B-5000 Namur
BELGIUM
Mobile phone : + 32 (0) 477 67 38 39
Work Phone : + 32 (0) 81 711 734
Fax : + 32 (0) 81 711 742
mailto:[email-masked]
Web: http://www.win.be/

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:15:35 -0400

> draft-ietf-iptel-gwloc-framework-03).

-03 is an old draft. The relationship is simple. GLP was the name of the
protocol we were chartered to define. Its now called TRIP. TBGP was a
proposal for GLP/TRIP. TBGP, and the other proposal, based on SCSP, have
been merged, and submitted as a draft. This protocol will be called
TRIP.

> I think it will be useful to harmonise inter-draft terms asap.

There is no need to harmonize terms across drafts. Drafts evolve and
change all the time. Here, we changed the name of the protocol.

> 2. To my understanding, TRIP was meant to merge GLP and TBGP approaches in a

TRIP combines aspects of the TBGP proposal and the SCSP-based proposal
(which was also called GLP). 

> So it seems to me that TBGP is also covering location of IP destinations as

Matt, Hussein, and I came to consensus that in the merged protocol,
TRIP, we would not support IP address propagation to reach H.323
terminals or SIP UAs. This is because these devices are end systems;
determining an IP address for them is a name to address translation
problem, and is best handled by directories like DNS (see the recently
resurrected enum group). However, a gateway is an intermediary point,
and its IP address is actually one hop of a route towards the end system
(here, a phone). In this case, what we are after is a name to route
translation, and that is much different. We have had numerous
discussions on this subject on the list.

I should note, however, that we have made TRIP fairly flexible in
address formats. All routes are represented as a tuple of {address
family, address length, address} , although we only define E.164 as an
address family.

> Is this difference still making TRIP and TBGP separate protocols ?

This group will produce one, and only one protocol, called TRIP. 

>    [1]. It is considered one of the most difficult problems in IP

Thanks.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       200 Executive Drive
Chief Scientist                             Suite 210 
Dynamicsoft                                 West Orange, NJ 07052
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244

---------