Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Accounting

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:45:38 +0000

> [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. 

why?  I don't mean to be dense, but I'm curious if your response is
rooted in reasons that relate to supporting a business model you have
in mind.

part of the reason I have not been convinced about accounting as a
requirement is that my exposure to it has never been one in which it
operates in real-time as a means of affecting the flow that transits a
network.  labeling and subsequent authentication/policing of flows
represent mechanisms that operates at real time.  accounting is an
after-the-fact third mechanism that may or may not be used.

customers that would pay for a service like GETS, or one based on MLPP, 
would certainly want accounting and so I'm not saying there isn't a need
for it.  but since IEPREP is broader in scope than these two systems,
we can't tie in a third mechanism that in certain cases plays no role.
for example, the land-line based system of GTPS (in the UK) has no
need for accounting. 

the problem I have with the above statement "must be capable of
performing accounting" is that it implies that a mechanism must exist
for accounting -- whether one uses it or not for *any and all* IEPREP
type services.  I've mentioned in the past that if there was a specific
set of requirements for a specific service (e.g., IP-based Autovon),
then that is where one would place the requirement for accounting.

one thing I can probably do in the draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-00.txt
draft is take a rough inverse of your statement and state that
the ability to perform accounting must not be precluded.

-ken

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