Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Moving forward: draft-carlberg-ets-*.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 17:14:40 EST

In a message dated 11/4/2002 5:55:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 3) I'd like to ask that folks here please take time now, before Atlanta,
> to read and critique the documents from Ken Carlberg (I kibbutzed, but 
> the work
> and words are mostly Ken's).  They are short documents (and I hope also
> sweet :-).
> 
> Application-specific Requirements for IP Telephony:
>     draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-00.txt
> 

[MAP] Following comments were sent in Sept, but I don't know if/how they were 
dealt with. I haven't seen an update.

1.1 Reference should be T1.631 (not 693).

3. Since the title and purpose of this document is to address the 
requirements for "IP-telephony", it should address the requirements for 
end-to-end provision of a telephony service. Therefore, the statement that 
"the following requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer mechanisms" 
should be removed. In fact, it should not state requirements for the non-IP 
protocols (SS7, DSS1), since the IETF has no control of those protocols. It 
should refer to what non-IP protocols do, and state the requirements for what 
the IP-protocols must do and how they must interwork.

1) IP signaling (SIP) MUST be able to carry labels.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:27:14 +0000

> 1.1 Reference should be T1.631 (not 693). 

yes.  it will be changed.

> requirements for "IP-telephony", it should address the requirements 
> for end-to-end provision of a telephony service. Therefore, the statement 
> that "the following requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer 
> mechanisms" should be removed. 

actually, the term end-to-end generally relates to layer 4 and up.
we took the approach that IP telephony is simply an application and
one can isolate requirements accordingly.

> In fact, it should not state requirements
> for the non-IP protocols (SS7, DSS1), since the IETF has no control of 
> those protocols. It should refer to what non-IP protocols do, and state
>  the requirements for what the IP-protocols must do and how they must 
> interwork. 

yes, agreed.  references to non-IP protocols will be removed.

> 1) IP signaling (SIP) MUST be able to carry labels. 

if this is a suggested change for 

     1) Telephony signalling applications used with Internet-based
     telephony MUST be able to carry labels.

then i would prefer not to change the wording.  even with the enclosure
of the term SIP, the wording of "IP signaling" is too closely linked
with RSVP.  further, i don't see the gain in changing the original
wording.

> [MAP] There has been discussion the past 6 weeks on several issues, some 
> prompted by my initial set of comments on Sept 18. I was waiting for an 
> update to be posted by the author to see how he had dealt with the results
> of those discusions. There was a significant discussion on "Policy vs 
> labels" begun by a comment on these drafts, but I don't know if there is
> a satisfactory resulution in the text. 

the section on the separation of "policy & labels" will be expanded to
provide more clarity.

> It may be that these should move forward as WG drafts, but it's hard to
> say when we haven't seen the -01 version after all the discussion. 

understood.  i believe one of the things Ran was alluding to was
whether the approach taken by us is acceptable to the group and
should be migrated to official working group documents.  this is
with the understanding that comments and clarifications will be made
to the next version of the document.

-ken

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