Subject: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:08:50 +0000

Although there was interest today in working on this further, I do not
think the present draft is in a suitable state for adopting as a
draft-ietf document. By all means charter a work item, but I would
prefer to see a further revision that takes into account the feedback
from today's meeting, in particular making it less prescriptive, before
adopting the draft as a working group document in fulfilment of the
charter item.

John

---

From: Theo Zourzouvillys <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:44:48 +0000

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Elwell, John
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> By all means charter a work item, but I would

I would like to echo this sentiment.

... I have no objection in the general goals of it, but i strongly
believe it should be focusing at the lower levels and general
*interconnect*/hop-by-hop stuff - things such as supporting TCP,
mutual TLS, NAPTR, overload control, etc rather than the endpoint
requirements to flow across those interfaces.

~ Theo

---

From: "Venkatesh Venkataramanan (venkatev)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:52:59 -0700

I echo this sentiment as well... I think there is definite value in this
draft. However, I think it's focus should be on "inter-connects" and
issues around it rather than "features" itself. 

Thanks,
Venkatesh

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Theo Zourzouvillys
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:45 AM
To: Elwell, John
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Elwell, John
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> By all means charter a work item, but I would prefer to see a further 
> revision that takes into account the feedback from today's meeting, in

> particular making it less prescriptive, before adopting the draft as a

> working group document in fulfilment of the charter item.

... I have no objection in the general goals of it, but i strongly
believe it should be focusing at the lower levels and general
*interconnect*/hop-by-hop stuff - things such as supporting TCP, mutual
TLS, NAPTR, overload control, etc rather than the endpoint requirements
to flow across those interfaces.

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

---

From: "Uzelac, Adam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:03:54 -0400

Theo,

I am quite following your train of thought, but really would like to understand what you are saying - how does stating that support for TCP, TLS, etc (your list below) NOT translate into endpoint requirements?  This is not a leading question, but a request for clarification.

Adam

---

From: Theo Zourzouvillys <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:31:50 +0000

> I am quite following your train of thought, but really would like to understand what you are saying - how does stating that support for TCP, TLS, etc (your list below) NOT translate into endpoint r…

sorry, let me say that as "SIP User Agents" (in terms of UAC and UAS)
rather than "SIP hops".

NAPTR, SRV, TLS etc are all hop by hop issues rather than SIP UA ones
(UAC, UAS, etc).

 ~ Theo