Subject: RE: [Ieprep] SIP-T/ISUP/SS7 interworking

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:14:59 -0500

At 02:17 PM 6/19/2002 -0400, Gunn, Janet NE wrote:
>I have only skimmed the first, but I have read the second and third
>documents.
>
>None of them seem to address the mapping and translation of "Calling Party's
>Category" (CPC)(ISUP mandatory parameter), nor of "Precedence" (ISUP
>optional parameter). 
>
>Both of these will probably be necessary to support "GETS-like" IP telephony
>emergency preparedness services.

These are for what we need to reference and do the gap analysis on -- in
IP. If there isn't a parameter or feature that we need, we need to include
it in our Requirements ID.

The tone of Fred's comments and requests were to put together a
SIP-ISUP(SS7) doc - and the URLs are those. 

We're kinda in a catch-22 with Fred and the ADs not allowing us to specify
a signaling mechanism before establishing the requirements for one, and
that mechanism can't be included in other documents (the URLs below) until
it's created through a requirement from this (or other) WG(s).

Since we haven't reached group consensus on the requirement for this R-P
Header (apparently) - how can it be included within other docs (even though
it is already)?

I'm momentarily bewildered and looking for guidance here (from the Chair
and ADs at least).

Allison/Scott -- Fred asked this WG to produce a SIP-ISUP doc for
translating and overlap(ing) information from one topology to the other.
The IDs listed below are the current work in that area. I understand that
several below are also in WG or IESG Last Call. How should we address the
requirement for GETS-like interoperation between IP and PSTN (ISUP/SS7)
networks this WG should address without the IDs below getting altered (if
nothing more than referencing the R-P Header ID)? This is interesting in
light of side conversations that have questioned the need for the R-P
Header at all, which could serve (once its allowed to proceed) as a
solution to IEPREP's requirements for this translation. 

>Am I missing something?

Henning's R-P requirements ID could serve as the gap analysis if it were
adjusted to reference the IDs listed below as what the IETF currently has
(Architectures A, B and C), and where the IDs below are lacking (in meeting
the requirements of IEPREP). Maybe....

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:35 PM
>To: Berg, Dennis; [email-masked]
>Subject: [Ieprep] SIP-T/ISUP/SS7 interworking
>
>
>Direct from the (co)author of the RFC and drafts on SIP/ISUP/SS7
>interworking
>
>>From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
>>
>>In addition to RFC3204 (which specifies MIME types for ISUP encapsulation)
>>you might want to check out the following:
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sipt-02.txt
>>(framework)
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-isup-02.txt
>>(translation)
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-overlap-00.txt
>>(specific to overlap)
>
>Hence, Fred (and all), I don't believe this WG requires a new ID in this
>area. Please let me know if these don't satisfy your ID requirement from
>the Interim meeting, but I do believe pointing at the following should
>proved the gap fillers we need.
>
>
>
>
>*************************************
>"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
>willing to allow for others"
>
>James M. Polk
>Senior Consulting Engineer
>Office of the CTO
>
>Cisco Systems
>2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
>Richardson, TX  75082 USA
>w) 972.813.5208
>f)  972.813.5280
>www.cisco.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ieprep mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Senior Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:32:37 -0400

> it's created through a requirement from this (or other) WG(s).

Sorry, but I don't see a "Catch-22", at least in the normal sense of 
that phrase
(from the book of the same name).

It is not unusual for an IETF WG to start with definition of high-level
requirements (e.g. for a signalling mechanism's capabilities), then using
those high-level requirements as a vehicle for talking with designers in 
other WGs
about what kinds of capabilities are missing and perceived as needed.

This sure seems pretty much like traditional top-down engineering to me,
not a catch-22 where there is no way out.

Ran
[email-masked]