Subject: [IPTEL] New name for TRIP-GW

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:41:45 -0400

Folks,

I'd like to propose a name change for the TRIP-GW (aka TRIP-LITE) protocol.

The reason is, as written, TRIP-GW is not actually an extension to TRIP. 
Nor is it a subset of TRIP. It differs in the consolidation process 
defined in the spec. This process, which allows an LS to keep multiple 
routes to the same prefix, for example, is not compatible with the 
decision process of TRIP. Its complementary, to be certain, but thats 
not the same. If you took a normal TRIP LS and put it in front of a 
TRIP-GW gateway, it would probably not do the right thing. It would 
function, I think, but you would not be able to implement the 
appropriate policies to process the information being generated by the 
gateways.

Do people concur with this view?

If so, I would propose that we rename the protocol to the Gateway 
Registration Protocol (GREP). I think the acronym is neat; the protocol 
is used to search for a gateway, sort of, so grep (in the unix sense) 
kind of works.

The protocol syntax and semantics remain unchanged. We will simply 
indicate that large pieces of TRIP are used wholesale by this protocol, 
referring the user to the appropriate sections of the TRIP spec.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Jayasimha M.R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:29:13 +0530

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with Dhaval, TGREP sounds good. As i said earlier,
I propose to call this as:

"Trunking Gateway REgistration Protocol" instead of
"Telephony Gateway REgistration Protocol".

Thanks,
Jayasimha

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 02:24:56 -0400

OK, lets go with "Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol". Trunking is 
too specific.

The most important thing here, of course, is the statement that this is 
not TRIP; that it uses a different back end processing (not the decision 
process outlined in RFC 3219), but rather this consolidation process.

-Jonathan R.

Jayasimha M.R wrote:
>> The reason is, as written, TRIP-GW is not actually an extension to 
>> TRIP. Nor is it a subset of TRIP. It differs in the consolidation 
>> process defined in the spec. This process, which allows an LS to keep 
>> multiple routes to the same prefix, for example, is not compatible 
>> with the decision process of TRIP. Its complementary, to be certain, 
>> but thats not the same. If you took a normal TRIP LS and put it in 
>> front of a TRIP-GW gateway, it would probably not do the right thing. 
>> It would function, I think, but you would not be able to implement the 
>> Registration Protocol (GREP). I think the acronym is neat; the 
>> protocol is used to search for a gateway, sort of, so grep (in the 
>> unix sense) kind of works.
>>
>> indicate that large pieces of TRIP are used wholesale by this 
>> protocol, referring the user to the appropriate sections of the TRIP 
>> spec.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan R.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Rajneesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:46:41 -0700

Should we take this as the consensus then ? I would like to incorporate 
this name change ASAP in the latest draft which is progress as I write.

Thanks,
Rajneesh ( for the  draft's authors )

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:07:21 -0400

Yes. Please include this change in the next rev.

-Jonathan R.

Rajneesh Kumar wrote:
>> OK, lets go with "Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol". Trunking 
>> is too specific.
>>
>> The most important thing here, of course, is the statement that this 
>> is not TRIP; that it uses a different back end processing (not the 
>> decision process outlined in RFC 3219), but rather this consolidation 
>> process.
>>
>> -Jonathan R.
>>
>> Jayasimha M.R wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>> process defined in the spec. This process, which allows an LS to 
>>>> keep multiple routes to the same prefix, for example, is not 
>>>> compatible with the decision process of TRIP. Its complementary, to 
>>>> be certain, but thats not the same. If you took a normal TRIP LS and 
>>>> put it in front of a TRIP-GW gateway, it would probably not do the 
>>>> right thing. It would function, I think, but you would not be able 
>>>> to implement the appropriate policies to process the information 
>>>> being generated by the gateways.
>>>>

---

From: Teddy A PURWADI <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:17:11 +0700

At 21:07 22/09/2002 -0400, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

Is TGRP terminology corellated to ENUM (IAB-ITU) on
e164.arpa infrastructure?

>>>>>protocol, referring the user to the appropriate sections of the TRIP spec.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Jonathan R.