Subject: [Speermint] Comments on draft-bhatia-sip-peering-00.txt

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:03:44 -0500

Hi,

I haven't been following the discussions closely but so maybe some
topics might have already being raised.

I think this draft is a good starting point. It touches on many issues
that need to be hashed out in detail.

In my opinion the decomposed scenario (where signaling and media take
different paths) is the one where the interaction between SIP and Layer
3-4 (as mentioned in the charter) is most important.

I've been working on this area and it seems to me all "business issues"
discussed in 5.3.X area actual technical issues to be solved.  How does
a policy decision point like a SBC/EdgeProxy convey the necessary
information to a policy enforcement point like "peering" router? Or even
more than one? Which information would be relayed (QoS, FW pinholes,
NAT, etc)? 

Is somebody going to jump and say MIDCOM? Diameter? Or maybe
Megaco/H.248?

How to reconcile such scenarios with the work done in TISPAN and IMS? I
believe these are valid questions. I believe khan's draft touches the
issue from an overall perspective. I remember someone made a comment
about it seeming to be an IMS look alike, but the fact of the matter is
that although the problem statements are different, the architecture (or
device nomenclature?) used in 3GPP/TISPAN fits very well with the
scenarios.

I wonder if somebody is willing to work on a draft expanding on the
technical issues for SIP<->Layer 3-4 interactions for a decomposed
scenario (which encompasses the coupled scenario). I've started it but
would not mind help with the writing.

Regards,

Reinaldo

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

---

From: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:58:41 -0500

Hi Reinaldo,

> 3-4 (as mentioned in the charter) is most important.

I think this is in the charter of the WG, but the current draft touches
on media only for making informative route decisions (really peer
selection). There are good chances that this part of the solution will
evolve as the SIP implementations/specs evolve. The focus of this draft
is routing only and the related use cases.

> Is somebody going to jump and say MIDCOM? Diameter? Or maybe

My personal view is that these protocols are more for a master/slave
control. In peering, this is really not the case and I don't think the
carriers involved will actually like such a solution (interdomain MEGACO
etc).

> device nomenclature?) used in 3GPP/TISPAN fits very well with the

Those are good issues for the WG, but the context of this draft is
fairly general to IETF. Unless IMS alters a use case or has a
requirement which affects us (you may know more than I do...), I think
we should keep the scope contained (however I am open to ideas based on
how the WG may decide to move ahead).

-Medhavi.

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:30:13 -0500

> carriers involved will actually like such a solution (interdomain
MEGACO

[[Reinaldo]] 

It is not really interdomain. I guess the main point is how do you
convey policy decision based on SIP URIs, domains, agreements and so
forth to the devices that are going to handle the media "your" domain
and the other.

> 
> > How to reconcile such scenarios with the work done in TISPAN and
IMS?
> I