Subject: [Speermint] Re: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] I-D: Publishing SIP Peering Policy

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:45:51 +0100

At 18:42 04.01.2006, Richard Shockey wrote:

>David Meyer wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:32:49PM -0600, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>>
>>>This is seems to be an excellent approach and I suggest we discuss it on the
>>>list and close at the 65 IETF meeting in March.
>
>
>This is a general question for the list in general.
>
>Presuming you could query a network for its VoIP peering policy.
>
>What data on terms and conditions of peering would one need to encapsulate?

here's what we could think of  - terms and conditions basically come 
from the following four realms:

* Technical
   - What SIP transport is required?
   - SIP extensions? URI conventions? Privacy? Caller-ID?
   - Anti SPIT measures.
   - QoS

* Contractual
   - Do I need to sign a contract (with whomever) beforehand?

* Regulatory
   - Is a certain legal status required? E.g. only registered
     Communication Service Providers may initiate calls.
   - E.g. sender must conform to local CALEA or other rules.

* Financial
   - No settlement?
   - If yes, how.

Note that we are NOT proposing to auto-detect, auto-match this full 
gamut of policy elements - we need to finish this in time; 
auto-matching legal & regulatory aspects is out of scope for us.

Another general question is the following: Is the peering policy a 
function of the recipient's domain, or one of the full URI? In other
words, is peering done one the domain level (and thus equal to all 
users ain that domain) or do we need to support policies which differ amongst
users?

Michael Haberler
Otmar Lendl

>--
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
>NeuStar Inc.
>46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
>sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
>ENUM +87810-13313-31331
>PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
>Fax: +1 815.333.1237
><mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
><mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
><http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>List Archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/voipeer/
>User Tools: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/voipeer.html

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

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:00:17 -0600

A scalable approach must include peering policies that can be matched
without human intervention. Today, it is best effort QoS with no other
strings attached. It will be interesting to see if it possible to have
anything else better than best effort: Maybe some DSCP to start with.

A DSCP for QoS may be a good start for interdomain VoIP.
What other policies could be automated for matching by machines?

I would avoid having a big registrar in the sky, other than DNS and ENUM,
since otherwise we will be back to politics again. Besides: 
Everybody will want to be this registrar :-) Also known as a settlement
house. We could end up with just as many settlement providers as there are
VoIP islands.
The latest count is 552 at http://www.myvoipprovider.com/

Starting with ENUM/DNS discovery as you have proposed and DiffServ between
consenting peering VoIP providers would be a great accomplishment by this
WG! 

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Haberler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Richard Shockey; David Meyer
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] I-D: Publishing SIP Peering Policy

* Technical

* Contractual

* Regulatory

* Financial
   - No settlement?
   - If yes, how.

Another general question is the following: Is the peering policy a 
function of the recipient's domain, or one of the full URI? In other
words, is peering done one the domain level (and thus equal to all 
users ain that domain) or do we need to support policies which differ
amongst
users?

Michael Haberler
Otmar Lendl