Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Accounting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:07:56 EST

In a message dated 11/27/2002 9:20:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

[RJA] So I remain very confused about what the accounting advocates
are asking for.  I might be slower than most to puzzle some
stuff out, but what I got out of the Accounting presentation
was roughly this:

    - Accounting is a requirement.
    - We don't mean that packet accounting is a requirement.

[MAP] We start with the requirement that any system that handles IEPREP or 
any kind of priority telephone calls must be capable of performing 
accounting, i.e., maintaining Call Detail Records. Just because packet 
technology is used, doesn't change the current requirement in any way. (And 
it doesn't change what a "call" is from the end user's perspective.)

[RJA] Which begs the question of precisely which stuff folks think operators
need to perform accounting on.  Scott Bradner suggested that maybe
folks meant that there should be some form of accounting within SIP.
Is that suggestion correct ?

[MAP] At the requirements level in IEPREP, we're trying to stay away from 
specific implementations (like SIP). However, I guess we all know that we're 
talking about SIP. I have to presume that the complete solution to the 
accounting requirements I've detailed would be in SIP. But I can't be certain 
that SIP is sufficient until we have an agreement on what the requirements 
are and then examine SIP.

[RJA] I'd really like to understand precisely what folks think is required.

When folks say that "accounting is a requirement" do they really
mean that " A SIP implementation must be able to perform accounting
for (some specific list of objects/events)" or mean something else ?

- If the quoted sentence above is close, could folks please be specific and
    enumerate which specific objects/events need to have accounting support ?
- If something else, then please be specific and tell us what exactly
    folks want to perform accounting on ?

[MAP] Any implementation that handles "call" setup must be able to perform 
accounting.

<snip>

[RJA] Also, would it be consistent with the Accounting advocates desires to
say something like this:

    Network operators that do not operate (SIP servers) are not required
    to perform any accounting in order to support IEprep services.

[MAP] Clearly if the solution is completely in SIP, the above sentence would 
be true. I suspect this is true.

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:11:33 -0500

> it doesn't change what a "call" is from the end user's perspective.)

Do you mean "call detail records" inside SIP only ?
What do you want from the IP routers ?  nothing ?

> are and then examine SIP.

OK, so you likely mean within "SIP or equivalent telephone call 
management
applications".  Right or wrong ?

> [MAP] Any implementation that handles "call" setup must be able to 

OK.  So in my mind, "call setup" is an application layer function only
when one is using VoIP.  Am I confused about this ?  If so, please 
someone
clarify.

> be true. I suspect this is true.

Mike's reply has been very helpful.  There are a couple of things that 
I'd
like folks to read/correct still.  And if anyone has different answers 
than
Mike had, please speak up and help me understand the differences.

Ran