Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:36:28 -0500

Well ..I guess that is why we are not having a formal PEPPERMINT BOF right?

Cullen there is a community that wants to flush out the issues you correctly
point out here before Chicago.

I want a meeting room in Prague to do this. If I ask the Secretariat for a
non official BOF will you approve it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00
> 
> 
> Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got
> no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have
> no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it.
> 
> I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning
> peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). However,
> this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic level
> information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what constraints
> the trust and administrative boundaries place on the protocol.
> 
> I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that
> information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high
> level models and requirements then we can figure out design that
> meets the needs.
> 
> Cullen <with my individual hat on>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:25:54 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
> Date: March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST
> To: [email-masked]
> Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I  
> got no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly  
> have no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it.
>
> this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic  
> level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what  
> constraints the trust and administrative boundaries place on the  
> protocol.
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:37:59 -0400

Cullen,

I think the info you want is actually in some other drafts:

Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia  
Interconnection (PEPPERMINT) Problem Statement
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-peppermint-problem- 
statement-00.txt

and

E.164 Number Provisioning - Data Set Requirements
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schwartz-peppermint-e164- 
provisioning-data-set-00.txt

As for EPP being bad, that is a matter of taste.  I do think there is  
a strong preference toward SOAP by many.  While I'm not wild about  
it, a SOAP based standard is far better than what we have today.

-andy

On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:

>> got no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I  
>> certainly have no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to  
>> support it.
>>
>> peering services (whatever a peering service provider is).  
>> However, this draft does not help me understand what is is the  
>> semantic level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and  
>> what constraints the trust and administrative boundaries place on  
>> the protocol.
>>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:22:55 -0700

> non official BOF will you approve it?

Hi,

I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is in- 
scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at least  
to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be  
necessary to form a new working group.

However, if you feel that this discussion can't be had in the main  
SPEERMINT WG meeting and the chairs agree, I think the best way forward
would be for the SPEERMINT chairs to request an Ad-hoc meeting.  
Ultimately this is Jon's decision but if the chairs were in
favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I  
would be supportive.

Cullen

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:36:03 -0400

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Jon Peterson; Andrew Newton
> Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00
> 
> 

Well the thought was and I think the SPEERMINT WG chairs would agree, that
they have a very very full plate of issues they need to deal with and
PEPPERMINT development would be better off with an Ad-Hoc.

In that case I'll let Jason and Dave add their views. I'm pretty sure they
agree with the Ad-Hoc solution but I'm perfectly amenable to whatever they
feel is best.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:23 -0400

On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is  
> in-scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at  
> least to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be  

Considering that SPEERMINT mentions nowhere in its charter  
provisioning issues and that ENUM wg has atleast taken on EPP work  
before, having this work done in ENUM is just as reasonable an  
idea.... which is to say that either make only as much sense because  
they reuse the same acronyms.

> favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I  

The idea that work needs to get requirements agreed upon in one  
working group only so it can then go off to get a BoF to spin up  
another working group to actually do the real work is daft.  Pretty  
please, can we also be required to fill out some forms in triplicate  
to be approved by the Chair of the Committee for Nevermind once it  
has been notarized by the Under Secretary of Busywork?  Given this,  
it is simply stunning that the IETF feels smugly superior to  
organizations like the ITU.

-andy

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:55:01 -0700

The protocol proposal produced are not convincing that there is a  
bunch of folks that have a common shared version of what the problem  
is. Without this you have no chance of consensus at a widely useful  
protocol. The number of people that replied positively to my question  
about should we have a BOF  could be counted on one hand. You need to  
build better consensus of what is the work that needs to happen. I'm  
glad to help you do this.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:05 -0400

On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> bunch of folks that have a common shared version of what the  
> problem is. Without this you have no chance of consensus at a  
> widely useful protocol. The number of people that replied  
> positively to my question about should we have a BOF  could be  
> counted on one hand. You need to build better consensus of what is  
> the work that needs to happen. I'm glad to help you do this.

First, what protocol proposal are you talking about?  I think those  
of us who want something NOW are being very patient by not putting  
forth 5 different protocol proposals, and instead documenting  
requirements, use cases, and problem statements so that there is a  
common understanding.  You seemed to indicate this is exactly what we  
should do by getting requirements passed in one working group before  
trying for a BoF.  However, if you feel we should just start taking a  
stab at protocols, I'm all for it.  On an issue as simple as this,  
requirements only serve the IESG.... nobody else reads them.

Second, mailing list traffic and show of hands in a meeting are not  
the same ratios in all communities, even within RAI.  I realize that  
some RAI working groups seem to have volumes of list traffic compared  
to hands in the meeting (I know, I co-chair one), but if you look at  
SPEERMINT you'll see that it is not the same.  At the last SPEERMINT  
meeting, the item that got the most agreement at the open discussion  
period was this issue.  Or do you expect that all RAI efforts must  
have as big an audience and as far reaching an impact as the SIP WG?   
What's the magic number we need, because I have not found it in any  
RFC where it should be documented?

I realize this is not your half of RAI and appreciate your  
willingness to dive through new drafts and issues, especially given  
your load for the working groups where you are AD.  We'd have a  
better IETF if only more ADs worked as hard as you.  But I'm baffled  
by your recommended course of action and cannot understand why you do  
not feel it is a couple of process hurdles too many.

-andy