Subject: Discussion on PINT Conference Call Draft

From: David Shrader <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 23:13:59 -0500

Lev,

Thanks for bringing up the conference call topic. I find it to be an
interesting service that I think could be quite useful.

I think, however, that there are many things specified here that don't
really belong in PINT. All of the material related to the committing of
actions and coordination of the conference session prior to setup is really
application specific and is outside the scope of a protocol like PINT, in my
opinion. I think the capabilities to the have an IP host which is
implementing such a conferencing service to request the PSTN to actually set
up the call is the type of capability for PINT to address.

One additional point, the discussion related to fax data. It seems to me
that from the PINT Client to PSTN point of view this could be seen as simply
another multiparty call requesting the fax to multiple destinations (which,
the PSTN would translate to a one-many broadcast arrangement and not really
a muliparty conference due to the bilateral handshakes required for a
standard fax). From the PINT server perspective, this does not need to be
related to the voice conference at all and may, in fact, be offered via
another PSTN provider.

David

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

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:48:45 -0500

David Shrader wrote:

> opinion. 

It is absolutley true that the subject is OUTSIDE of the PINT charter, which is
why we have paid little attention to it while completing the work of the
charter.

Steve and I have discussed this subject with the ADs six months ago, and as the
result of the discussion we admitted the first copy of this draft to PINT as a
PINT WG document. The present document is a follow-up to replace the expiring
draft.  

I personally would like to finish whatever little is left to finish with the
present charter (see the Chairs' State of The Group Address, which will be sent
today) before embarking full speed on a new project, but the discussion is
welcome.

My view of Lev's proposal is that it is consistent with the spirit of the
present PINT charter (i.e., services initated with the PSTN),  and I have a
clear understanding of the need for the protocol as proposed by Lev. We must,
however, make sure that the protocol can INTERWORK with the IN Call Party
Handling (CPH) standardized in the ITU-T IN CS-2. A few experts had looked at
Lev's proposal, which was brought to ITU SG 11 by Hui-Lan, and told me they
agree with it and felt it could interwork with the CPH.

So, yes, we can discuss the draft--although let us concentrate on technical
issues, and when it is clear where we are going we will decide whether this
should be done in re-chartered PINT, or another group, or independent of any
group.

But we also need to finish the work WITHIN the charter!

With best regards,

Igor

---------