Subject: [Speermint] Service Provider => SIP Service Provider

From: "James McEachern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:42:24 -0500

OK by me if we want to change service provider to SIP service provider,
or SSP in all of our documents.  In addition to the Terminology Draft,
here is a listing of the other WG drafts where 'service provider' should
be changed to 'SIP service provider' or 'SSP' for consistency.

draft-ietf-speermint-srv-naptr-use-02.txt
Abstract:   "The objective of this document is to specify the Best
Current 
   Practice (BCP) adopted by a service provider... " => SIP service
provider

Section 3: "SIP systems are represented by user agents (UA).  The
diagram below shows the case of direct peering where a user agent (UA1),
hosted by a service provider SP1, initiates a SIP session to a User
Agent (UA2), hosted by service provider SP2."
'service provider SP1' => 'SIP service provider SP1'
'service provider SP2' => 'SIP service provider SP2'

draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-04
Introduction:  First paragraph mentions 'IP Service provider...'  =>
SIP?
Second paragraph:  'This architecture allows the interconnection of two
service providers ...'  => 'SIP service providers'

Section 2, in the bulleted list, the second, third fifth and sixth
bullets all have 'Service Provider' which should be changed to 'SIP
Service Provider'

Figure 1 has two instances of 'Service Provider' which should be changed
to 'SIP Service Provider'.

Section 6, third paragraph:   'Centralized or Distributed:  Addresses
the question whether the logical and physical peering points are in one
geographical location or distributed to multiple physical locations on
the service provider network.' => 'SIP service provider network.'

In addition the following sections all use the term 'Provider' in the
section titles, when I think they really mean 'SIP Service Provider' or
'SSP':
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.5  (also note that this section says 'Initiating' provider, when it
should say 'Receiving' provider.)
The term 'Provider' is also used twice in figure 3, when I think it
should be 'SSP'.
Finally, in section 8:   'In all cases, cryptographic-based security
should be maintained as an optional requirement between peering
providers...' => 'SIP service providers'.

draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-03.txt
Abstract: 'The document describes several use cases of peering of
non-VoIP services between two or more Service Providers (SP).' => 'SIP
Service Providers'

draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-03.txt
Section 3.1: 'Direct peering describes those cases in which two service
providers...' => 'SIP service providers'

Section 3.2: 'Indirect, or transit, peering refers to the establishment
of either a signaling and media path or signaling path alone via one (or
more) referral or transit network(s). In this case it is generally
required that a trust relationship is established between the
originating service provider...' => 'SIP service provider'

That's all I found.

Jim McEachern
T:+1 613 763-3419
M:+1 613 853-0176

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]]
  > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:45 PM
  > To: McEachern, James (CAR:AR00)
  > Cc: Elwell, John; Livingood, Jason; [email-masked]
  > Subject: RE: [Speermint] [wg-business] WGLC fordraft-ietf-speermint-
  > terminology-13
  > 
  > I think I am actually more of a fan of the "add SIP" to "service
  > provider" in Section 4.2 (and, throughout the document as necessary)
for
  > this reference.  Then, it will directly relate back to the
definition of
  > a SSP in Section 3.9.
  > 
  > --Daryl
  > 
  > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 00:53 -0500, James McEachern wrote:
  > > Comments inline.
  > >
  > > John Elwell wrote:
  > >
  > > --- snip ----
  > >
  > >   > > Finally, and again I apologize for the lateness of this
comment,
  > > the
  > >   > > definition of Service Provider in section 3.8 suggests that
the
  > > term
  > >   > > "Service Provider" when used without the preceding "SIP"
  > >   > > means an entity
  > >   > > that only provides layer 3 functionality.  This definition
  > > conflicts
  > >   > > with usage later in this and other documents.  (e.g. section
  > >   > > 4.2 states:
  > >   > > "Layer 5 (Session) peering refers to interconnection of two
  > > service
  > >   > > providers...".)  We either need to add "SIP" before "service
  > > provider"
  > >   > > (in several places) or modify the definition slightly.
  > >   > >
  > >   > > Perhaps change the existing text:
  > >   > > "A Service Provider (or SP) is defined to be an entity that
  > > provides
  > >   > > layer 3 (IP) transport of SIP signaling and media packets."
  > >   > >
  > >   > > Change to:
  > >   > > "A Service Provider (or SP) is defined to be an entity that
  > > provides
  > >   > > layer 3 (IP) transport of SIP signaling and media packets,
  > >   > > and may also
  > >   > > provide layer 5 processing of SIP signaling and media
packets."
  > >   > [JRE] This change doesn't work for me. I think we need to go
for
  > > your
  > >   > other proposal (inserting "SIP" in appropriate places).
  > >   >
  > >   > John
  > > [jmce]  I've gone through most of the drafts to identify where we
  > would
  > > need to make changes by inserting "SIP".  I've found over 20
instances
  > > already, along with a dozen or so that simply say "provider" - and
  > hence
  > > presumably need to add "SIP Service".  Before I document all of
these
  > > instances, I just want to ensure that the group wants to go this
route,
  > > rather than the simpler choice of changing the definition.
  > >
  > > Let me know.
  > >
  > > Jim
  > >
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > Speermint mailing list
  > > [email-masked]
  > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

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

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:03:09 -0700

James,

   The use of SIP service provider terminology has been discussed many
times before and some wg drafts have used it since before IETF#69.  We
can't keep revisiting those basic terms - let's stick with this one.

   Thanks for checking the inconsistencies in other wg drafts. Let me
know if you see any issues with the use of 'service provider' in the
requirements draft - I'll fix it.

Jean-Francois.

> From: James McEachern [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 4:42 PM
> To: Daryl Malas
> Cc: [email-masked]; Livingood, Jason
> Subject: [Speermint] Service Provider => SIP Service Provider
> 
> or SSP in all of our documents. 

> In addition to the Terminology Draft,

[snip]