Subject: [Speermint] speermint terminology draft07: on-demand and static

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:25:05 -0600

Draft 07 says:
---
4.2.1. Direct Peering 

   Direct peering describes those cases in which two service providers 
   interconnect without using an intervening layer 5 network.
...
and then

4.2.4. On-demand Peering 

   Service providers are said to peer on-demand when they are able to 
   exchange traffic without any pre-association prior to the origination

   of a real-time transaction (like a SIP message) between the domains. 
   Any information that needs to be exchanged between domains in support

   of peering can be learned through a dynamic protocol mechanism.

4.2.5. Static Peering 

   Service providers are said to peer statically when pre-association 
   between providers is required for the initiation of any real-time 
   transactions (like a SIP message).
-----

First, I read this as the debate we had on static vs. dynamic policy is
now moving into the basic definitions of peering. I view this ("this"
being static vs. on-demand association) as separate from the type of
peering and distinct for the 3 basic definitions we had (direct,
indirect, assisted).
	- static peering is a special case of direct peering as
"pre-association" is meant between *two* SSPs, and it means that a
special policy requires that those 2 SSPs meet and agree on certain
policy parameters such as security requirements or associations?, etc.
	- on-demand peering can be applied to direct, or indirect
peering.

It is already difficult for everyone to use common terms in the wg
documents and I would recommend keeping 3 definitions (direct, indirect,
assisted). If the point of those additions is to introduce static vs.
dynamic policy stuff, then it could be presented elsewhere in the
terminology document.

Jean-Francois.

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

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:43:16 -0600

So, I updated 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 with the caveat that both of these are
applicable to direct, indirect, assisted.  I was hoping this would
clarify these from being considered an "either/or" situation to a
"and/also" situation.

I can remove them entirely if we want to go back down that road, but I
think it is clearer now.  I just submitted a revision last night, so
take a look at -08 and let me know what you think.

Thanks...--Daryl