Subject: [Speermint] Release Notes: draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-08

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:03:26 -0600

The following updates were made in -08:

- I expanded as many acronyms as I could find.  I also put references in
for almost all of them too.

- I updated section 3.9 and made a clarification in 3.8 to provide an
ISP as an example SP.

- I removed "secure" from section 4.2 and 4.2.2

- I added clarification to "static" and "on-demand" that either can be
used for "direct/indirect/assisted" peering types

- I changed the case of "Codec"

- I changed "SIP" to "SSP" and other "SP" references to "SSP" in section
5.

- Also, there should be page breaks now.

- I also tweaked a couple of other things as minor nits.

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

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:07:34 -0600

Also, FYI...a -09 version will likely be rolling off very soon, so if
you have comments, please send them to me ASAP!

Thanks...--Daryl

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:04:39 +0100

Daryl,

The definitions make a clear distinction between SIP service provider
(SSP) and service provider (SP), yet I suspect in a lot of the document
the term SP is used when really SSP is intended. Even in the definition
of SSP it says "Such a service provider", when I think it means "Such a
SIP service provider". Then in the section "Layer 5 peering" it states
"Layer 5 (Session) peering refers to interconnection of two service
providers...." - shouldn't it say "SIP service providers"? And in the
section "Direct Peering", shouldn't "two service providers" be "two SIP
service providers"?

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 06 July 2007 21:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Speermint] Release Notes: 
> draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-08
>