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

From: "Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:20:58 -0600

We also need to address: how does a mobile user enjoy the outcome of his
home admin-domain policy when the he is visiting a foreign admin-domain
that implements a different policy.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Haberler
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

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

________________________________________________________________________
_____
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: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:56:02 +0100

>that implements a different policy.

Sohel,

we're just having very modest goals here - addressing the basic 
problem of interworking between ITAD's represented by SIP domains 
without assuming the whole world runs open URIs, with acceptable 
management load and in finite time (this year, that is).

The GSM association is a quite good example for a federation, which 
sets rules for traffic between their members. Why dont you guys just 
go for that and be done?

I understand that IMS roaming is a bit of a home-grown challenge but 
I would be very hesitant to take on fixing it on the plate in this 
working group.

We need to sort this out though wether that's in scope - what is the 
WG opinion here?

-Michael