Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:00:00 EST

In a message dated 11/8/2002 8:21:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> There are MANY different definitions for "accounting" in the IETF.
> It would help further the discussion A Whole Lot if one were much
> more clear about which (sub)set of those definitions is intended
> by the proponent of the idea.
> 

Yes, I'm sure there are. Have you read 
draft-pierce-ieprep-assured-service-req-00.txt?

Mike Pierce

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:54:38 -0500

> draft-pierce-ieprep-assured-service-req-00.txt?

Yes.

It is unclear what you are looking for in Section 4.8 (and also
in a number of other places).  One interpretation is that you want
packet accounting for how many packets marked X were forwarded.
Another is that you want to have SIP always perform application-specific
accounting of some (unclear) sort.  Another is that you want to have
all of the above.  The final possibility seems to be that you have
something else in mind entirely.  Clarity would be good.

Anther major source of confusion is the repeated discussion in that 
draft
about "calls" as if they were stateful below the transport-layer, when 
the
Internet Architecture does not have such a concept.

In the Internet model, there is no session-layer, so no explicit 
session-state.

There is some transport state (more with TCP or SCTP than with UDP).  
There
is very little to no state in UDP (partly depending on whether one is 
speaking
architecturally or in terms of a particular implementation).  For 
example,
UDP in a 4.4 BSD implementation does have some slight state in a 
protocol
control block -- but conceptually/architecturally UDP has no state.  
Most
voice applications run over UDP.

The SIP application might have application-layer state, but that doesn't
imply or require the existence of lower-layer state.

At the IP-layer, the Internet provides an unreliable datagram service 
only.
The IP-layer does not have the *concept* of a call, nor should it have
that concept.  Such would violate the end-to-end principle.

So you see, I have read the draft, I find it confusing, and I believe
that we need much more clarity before/during Atlanta to have an 
effective
meeting.

Ran
[email-masked]

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