Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:25:40 EST

In a message dated 11/8/2002 2:21:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Those seem reasonable.  It will probably help focus things a whole lot
> if "accounting" is replaced by a much more precise term/definition.
> Adding accounting to the overall Internet Architecture would represent
> a huge change to the architecture so seems like a very bad idea.  I
> hope/suspect something else is being proposed.  Clarity in what is
> meant/intended/sought would be good.
> 

Please see draft-ietf-sipping-aaa-req-01.txt and the charter of the AAA WG. 
The term "accounting" is the accepted one for what we are talking about.

Mike Pierce

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:21:04 -0500

On Friday, Nov 8, 2002, at 17:25 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> Please see draft-ietf-sipping-aaa-req-01.txt and the charter of the 
> AAA WG. The term "accounting" is the accepted one for what we are 
> talking about.

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.

For example, packet accounting is an IP-layer function.  Voice Call
Accounting might be an application-layer function for a telephony
application.  In AAA, such as RADIUS/DIAMETER, accounting really means
creating log entries for which user logged into which server at which 
date/time,
for how long, on what port, from where, and so forth.  Each of those
is very substantially different from the other.  The implementation
code of these examples exists is in different layers and/or in different
applications.  Depending on the kind of packet accounting desired, there
might not even exist appropriate instrumentation in widespread 
implementations.
Also, the deployment cost and on-going operational burden of each of
these different kinds of "accounting" is quite different.

Absent additional clarification, I do not see why people here are likely
to avoid continuing to talk past each other on the topic rather than
communicate effectively.  Even if people disagree, it is pleasant
if they clearly and correctly understand what each other are saying.

Ran

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 01:41:13 -0800 (PST)

> The term "accounting" is the accepted one for what we are talking about.
                ^^^^^^^^^^

You misspelled "waste of money."  This is the Internet, not the PSTN.
We'd rather deliver the traffic than fail to deliver the traffic in favor
of delivering a bill instead.

                                -Bill

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:03:33 -0600

>if they clearly and correctly understand what each other are saying.

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.

Does this seem reasonable?

BTW - this isn't Latin of the middle ages (where only the rich get the
education to be able to read the laws and scripture), this is the IETF
where anyone can comment, where anyone should have a specific place to be
pointed to the explanation of a thing (feature/function, why/why not).

>Ran

cheers,
James 

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