Subject: [IPTEL] draft-rs-trip-gw update!

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:06:08 -0400

Folks,

As you know, our new charter was approved by the IESG, and as such, we have
a January '02 deliverable for a protocol between gateways and proxies (aka
LS in trip terminology) for "gateway registration". As such, I did a
revision of draft-rs-trip-gw, which I submitted on Friday. Until it appears
in the archives, you can grab a copy at:

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rs-trip-gw-02.txt

I didn't get to this in time in order to rename in draft-ietf-iptel-*, but
that will happen after the meeting.

Anyway, we've discussed this document a few times now, and we still get
caught up in the issue of whether this problem really is or isn't a trip
problem. We need to nail that one immediately (i.e, at this meeting). I want
to start an email dialog to facilitate that. To help things along, the
document now contains requirements, and then analyzes a few protocols in
terms of how they meet the requirements. There are some open issues listed,
which we need to debate. Here are some of the more beefy ones:

 REQ 8: Extensible attributes: The proxy may need to know other
             information about the gateways - ISUP variant support,
             codec support, etc., in order to route a call to a gateway.
             The protocol has to provide a way for this kind of
             information to be easily added.

             OPEN ISSUE: Are these attributes characteristic of
             routes, or of the gateway itself? TRIP defines them as
             attributes of routes, and this means that they would
             be copied for each route that gets propagated. For
             other attributes, like capacity, it could not be
             copied, and the capacity would have to be divided
             amongst routes. How would that be done? Points to a
             potential open hold in TRIP usage for this
             application.

REQ 11: Independent Policies: The protocol should allow two
             different proxies within the same ITAD to make different
             decisions on which gateway to use for the same call. This
             might be desirable for load balancing purposes, for
             example.

             OPEN ISSUE: This is an important one to discuss, since
             it is the main differentiator between a routing
             protocol and a database protocol. If we don't need
             different proxies to get different answers about
             gateway availability depending on which proxy asks,
             its not a routing problem, and then TRIP may not be
             the ideal candidate for this usage!

I'd like your comments on these, or other, open issues in the document. Lets
get things moving again!

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel