Subject: Re: AIN application

From: [email-masked] (Igor Faynberg)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:21:51 -0400

With all respect to all the parties involved in the discussion of IN triggers,
I should re-iterate something I so far needed to say only once or twice:

This (PINT) list may not be used for flaming, whether the latter involves
people, companies, or products. There are many obvious reasons why this
is not acceptable in the IETF, but the main reason I am bringing it up
is because it is simply unproductive.

I hope the following suggestion will be productive. Let us not discuss
AIN here; this is simply NOT a proper forum for the discussion. Let us
instead deal with IN (i.e., the ITU-T standard). The ITU-T CS-1 and CS-2
call models have all the triggers that are needed--in my opinion--for
the services that are being discussed here. Furthermore, if we really find
that we need other triggers, we can bring appropriate contributions from
IETF/ISOC to the ITU-T and use a well-established cooperation process to
get things done.

Respectfully,

Igor Faynberg

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

---

From: "Marty Tennant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:58:31 -0400

Did someone get flamed??  Sorry, but I don't see the transgression,
particularly since ICW is a core service being discussed.

Respectfully,

Marty Tennant

----- Original Message -----
From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
To: Marty Tennant <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
CyberTelecomReg <[email-masked]>; pin list
<[email-masked]>; pint list
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: AIN application

With all respect to all the parties involved in the discussion of IN
triggers,
I should re-iterate something I so far needed to say only once or twice:

---------