Subject: [Ieprep] Requirements for Accounting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:44:01 EST

In a message dated 11/11/2002 2:17:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

      On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > Just because you don't want to "bill" for service in your network,
    > doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to do it.

That would make it "permitted" not a "requirement."  Even if you don't
realize it, I think you're beginning to see my point.  :-)

[MAP] I have seen your point from the very beginning, that you don't want to 
be told what you must do in your network. I accepted this from the beginning 
and only ask that you accept the same for others.

The "requirements" documents that IEPREP is trying to write do not set 
requirements on anyone to do anything in their network or to design it into 
their equipment. It is only the "requirements" to be passed to other WGs as 
the basis of their work. That is, if "Accounting" or "X" or "Y" is included 
in the IEPREP doc as a "requirement", it only means that some other WG must 
figure out a way to support it. When (and if) the resulting protocol document 
is written that describes how to perform "accounting" or "X" or "Y", I 
certainly expect that it will clearly says that it is "permitted", not 
"required".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------
In a message dated 11/11/2002 10:29:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

this relates to the issue that Ran and I have brought up separately
about avoiding confusion that the document be misconstrued as an
IETF statement that X, Y, and Z must be done.  Rather, we wanted to 
reinforce the notion that if a service is available it is because
a business contract in some form exists -- ie, there is no such thing
as a free lunch.  Having stated that, we can make another pass at 
trying to further clarify this intent.

[MAP] I certainly thought that it was understood and agreed across the board 
that no IETF document ever placed an actual requirement on any carrier or 
vendor to do anything. If that is not the case, then we have a bigger 
problem. It must be generally understood that all IETF documents by 
themselves do not require anyone to do anything. I'm confused by this belief 
that we need to make extra strong statements for this case. If this is 
needed, then it should be in a common statement in the beginning of every 
RFC. Perhaps the IAB should address this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In a message dated 11/11/2002 1:04:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

One observation here is this is a great opportunity for those that believe
there should be accounting (of some form) in IEPREP/ETS services and of
this WG, to write a single topic ID explaining exactly how they define that
topic and their perceived requirements of this function.

Opening up discussion on this topic would seem to be better served if there
were a written reference (not just a series of emails) all could comment on.

The discussion time Mike has on the agenda in Atlanta could be the start of
that (writing) effort.

[MAP] In draft-pierce-ieprep-assured-service-req-01, in Section 4, Functional 
Requirements, I wrote:

        Proper administration of the Assured Service capability requires 
        that use of the service can be reviewed after the fact for potential 
        abuse. Therefore, it is required that appropriate records be kept of 
        calls made, including the calling and called parties' identity, time 
        of the call, and the precedence level used. This is similar to the 
        requirements for Call Detail Recording (CDR) for billing purposes 
        for other services in a commercial environment. 

and in Section 6, Possible Approaches, I wrote:

        Call detail records (CDR) can be maintained by the proxy, since it 
        knows which users are authorized to place Assured Service calls and 
        knows when they do. Since not actually done to support billing 
        functions, it is not expected that a record of call duration is 
        required. 

I have received no comments directly on either statement.

Yes, I agree that more can and should be written to clarify this requirement, 
based on e-mail discussions, but so far, the only e-mails seem to be 
arguments that, since one carrier doesn't want to do billing, then no carrier 
should need or have the capability that I've described (which isn't really 
for "billing"). Oh, and some argument that, since the Internet architecture 
and philosophy don't support it, then it can't be a requirement. I'm hoping 
for some substantive comments. Maybe this could become a separate ID, but I 
see it as just a small section in a "requirements" ID.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:27:41 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > I have seen your point from the very beginning, that you don't want to
    > be told what you must do in your network.

No, that's not my point at all.  It's irrelevant what other people say
about what I must do in my network, since what I must do, I will perforce
do anyway.  The problem is when someone else _wants_ me to do something
that I don't need to do, and attempts to _require_ me to do it.

    > their equipment.

So as soon as draft authors HURRY UP AND EDIT THEIR DOCUMENTS TO REFLECT
THIS CLARIFICATION we can stop arguing about it.

    > If "Accounting" or "X" or "Y" is included in the IEPREP doc as a
    > "requirement", it only means that some other WG must figure out a
    > way to support it.

No, it _most certainly does not_ mean that.  And if you really think it
does, get ready for them to toss you out on your ear again.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:36:39 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > abuse...
    > knows when they do.

Perhaps because they are uncontroversial, and seem clear and logical.
They're basically just saying that you need the proxy to log these calls,
which is no burden, since proxies are already logging everything to a much
greater level of detail than you desire, anyway.  Correct?

I think that these work well because they're clearly stated needs, which
apply directly to a single layer of the protocol stack which is clearly
identified, and they don't exceed the abiility of technology to satisfy.

                                -Bill

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:59:33 +0000

> [MAP] I certainly thought that it was understood and agreed across the
> board that no IETF document ever placed an actual requirement on any
> carrier or vendor to do anything.

yes, it is understood by those that participate in the IETF, or have read 
various drafts/RFCs produced by the body.  

> If that is not the case, then we have
> a bigger problem. It must be generally understood that all IETF documents
> by themselves do not require anyone to do anything. I'm confused by this
> belief that we need to make extra strong statements for this case. If
> this is needed, then it should be in a common statement in the beginning
> of every RFC. Perhaps the IAB should address this. 

we've talked about this a few weeks ago.  the IEPREP is a rather 
different group than the others within the IETF in both the wide 
variety of backgrounds participating, and those that will be reading
the documents produced by it.  normally, I would agree that there is
no need to make any extra strong statement that IETF documents are not to 
be confused as mandates that must be followed by the comunity or vendors.
however, I think its important to take into account non-technical folks,
and more importantly people unfamiliar with the IETF, and go the extra
mile to point out things.  this also means being a bit more descriptive
than normal in drafts to make sure all technical participants understand 
whats being accomplished.

so yes, the strong statements are abnormal, but this sort of an abnormal
group :-)

-ken