Subject: RE: [Speermint] Reachability

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:09:22 -0400

> First we talked primarily about peering, which is according 
> to the FCC definition always bilateral and not about 
> interconnect and transit

Luckily, we can make up our own definitions in the Terminology Draft.
Last I checked, we were not bound by FCC definitions (and thankfully so,
I hasten to add).  ;-)

> speermint should not deal with commercial agreements, but it 
> could povide guidelines for the technical part, e.g.
> be setting minimum requirements for signaling protocols, 
> security, identifcation of provider A and his users, etc.in 
> other words a set of BCPs.

Sounds right.  I think the charter's milestones prove that out to some
extent.

> I said speermint should not be involved to much in commercial 
> agreements, but it may also provide some tools to make these 
> workable and scaleable.

Sounds right; we're not expecting to create a business here for the
IETF.  ;-)

> Bi-lateral agreements do not scale on a global level, so we 
> may assume that the agreements come in groups i.e. 
> federations or whatever we may call it

Sounds right on the part about bilateral agreements not scaling.
Imagine trying to use bilateral agreements to make email work (shudder).
 
> So it may be useful to provide means for a provider B to 
> annouce what kind of agreements he is requesting to accept 
> incoming calls.

This has come up a few times, including in Dallas.  Sounds like this is
the start of some more requirements for the Requirements Draft.  :-)  I
can imagine some domains/providers will want some kind of a capability
like this, while others may choose not to use it.  But it sounds like
such a policy / announcement method should be considered and discussed
more fully.

Jason

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

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:41:51 -0700

> Imagine trying to use bilateral agreements to make email work (shudder).

	Well, bilat's do scale at layer 3 (you might argue that
	O(n^2) isn't scaling, but in practice that's a loose
	upperbound, but then, the world is different there).

> such a policy / announcement method should be considered and discussed

	Yep.

	Dave