Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:59:00 EST

In a message dated 11/11/2002 5:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

So your real requirement is that the specs *not preclude* a carrier from 
billing,
not that the specs *support* billing.

[MAP] My requirement is that the specs "allow" a carrier to keep records 
related to individual calls by providing the necessary functionality. It does 
not address "billng", since I don't care what they do with the detailed call 
records.

But please don't increase the capital costs for all carriers just so that NCS,
which is NOT a carrier at all, can be happy that it changed the Internet 
architecture.

[MAP] I guess if NCS feels that accounting is required in order to administer 
GETS, then the added cost to the carriers will be part of what NCS pays to 
get the service. And if it costs too much, then that will be one more reason 
for not using IP as the transport for regular voice service.

Yes, this might increase the capital costs for any carrier that wants to 
support this customer (NCS), just as many other capabilites might. So what is 
so different about this one?

But, I am also arguing this point in support of DISA, which is the operator 
of a large network, which may one day migrate to supporting voice over IP 
(although I'm beginning to think that is a long way off!)

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:08:12 -0800 (PST)

> not address "billng", since I don't care what they do with the detailed call

You might also take care to make clear that you're not asking for
functionality which would support carriers performing accounting on this
traffic, but instead for functionality which would support proxy operators
performing accounting, which already exists and is uncontroversial.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:33:32 -0500

On Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002, at 12:59 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> Yes, this might increase the capital costs for any carrier that wants 
> to support this customer (NCS), just as many other capabilites might. 
> So what is so different about this one?

The problem is that it probably increases the costs for carriers that 
CHOOSE NOT TO
support NCS as a customer.

> But, I am also arguing this point in support of DISA, which is the 
> operator of a large network, which may one day migrate to supporting 
> voice over IP (although I'm beginning
> to think that is a long way off!)

DISA does operate a large network.  The DISN technical staff (i.e. the 
folks who
actually do operate those IP networks) seem to be taking a different 
posture than you
when I talk with DISN folks directly.  Not sure where the disconnect 
lies in that...

Ran