Subject: RE: [IPTEL] draft meeting minutes

From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:45:54 -0500

Comments inline [RRR]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:25 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA
Cc: iptel
Subject: Re: [IPTEL] draft meeting minutes

Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA wrote:

> Hi, Everyone:
> 
> In addition to the scenarios presented by Jon Peterson, I will add that
> there can be different types of GWs: SIP-ISUP, SIP-H.323, SIP-BICC, etc.
> 
> The GW registration scenarios MUST not exclude any types of GWs. That
> is, we must NOT develop the SIP-ISUP GW registration protocol per se.

Radhika, this has been discussed on the list, and there was a consensus 
hum taken on this subject at IETF 52. The consensus was that non-PSTN 
gateways are OUT OF SCOPE.

[RRR] I would appreciate if the technical reasons would have been documented. (I have not seen in the meeting minutes.)

Now, it may be that the protocol that is 
developed will work for them anyway, 

[RRR] Could you please clarify this? Do you mean that the registration protocol can be used/extended for any types of GWs?

but we are not considering 
requirements to deal with SIP-H.323 gateways.

[RRR] What are the additional requirements for the SIP-H.323 GWs that the registration protocol will not work?

Let us move on.

[RRR] Definitely, I would like to move on.

[RRR] I am assuming that we will develop the registration protocol considering the SIP-ISUP GW first while the protocol can be extended for other GWs as well.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:53:28 -0500

> [RRR] I would appreciate if the technical reasons would have been
> documented. (I have not seen in the meeting minutes.)

Its an issue of scope and what problem people agree we are trying to 
solve. The problem we were chartered to solve, and the problem people 
want to solve, is managing the resources of a set of PSTN gateways 
fronted by a proxy. Thus, this is the problem that will drive 
requirements for the protocol.

> [RRR] Could you please clarify this? Do you mean that the registration
> protocol can be used/extended for any types of GWs?

No, I am saying exactly what it says above. The protocol will be driven 
by requirements to handle the case where a proxy fronts a set of PSTN 
gateways whose resources it wishes to manage. If, when we are done, it 
turns out that such a protocol can in fact be used for something that is 
not a PSTN gateway, well thats fine. But it doesn't drive requirements.

> the registration protocol will not work?

You have asked for things like address families that are in the form of 
domain names. We will not consider that as a requirement. In any case, I 
don't think it makes any sense at all, since if you know the domain 
name, sounds like DNS is what you want. I fought against the inclusion 
of domain-name based address families in TRIP in the first place for the 
same reasons.

> [RRR] I am assuming that we will develop the registration protocol
> considering the SIP-ISUP GW first while the protocol can be extended for
> other GWs as well.

You are fixated on protocol conversions. That is not the problem at 
hand. The type of SS7 protocol is not the primary point; the primary 
point is that these are PSTN gateways, possibly large ones, with 
attributes that reflect the fact that there is PSTN connectivity. That 
means its things like ASR and PDD that need to be conveyed.

-Jonathan R.