Subject: [Speermint] WG: I-D ACTION:draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:04:45 +0200

Hi Andy,
 
I have a problem with the language in section 1.3 Call Termination:
 
"When a call originates from an ITSPs network, the ITSP must decide
   where to terminate the call.  There are three choices: ...."

IMO there are no choices where to terminate a call. A call can
only be terminated in the destination network and there is only one
 
The ITSP may have choices how to route to or reach the termination
network.
 
"For off-network termination, it is quite common to be able to
   terminate a given call with multiple peers."
 
No, you may transit the call via multiple peers, but it can only
be TERMINATED in the final destination network.
 
"Traditionally, transit providers and entities offering Indirect
   Peering are able to terminate any call given to them, especially
   within the E.164 [5] namespace. "
 
Again, a transit network by definition may never terminate a call.
 
regards
Richard

________________________________

Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: So 10.09.2006 21:50
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

        Title           : An ITSP Problem Statement Regarding SIP Peering
        Author(s)       : A. Newton
        Filename        : draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt
        Pages           : 13
        Date            : 2006-9-10

   This document illustrates the operational considerations of Internet
   Telephony Service Providers (ITSP) with regard to SIP peering.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
        [email-masked].
In the body type:
        "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-newton-speermint-itsp-problem-statement-00.txt".
       
NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
        MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
        feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
        command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
        a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
        exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
        "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
        up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
        how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:49:29 -0400

On Sep 11, 2006, at 6:04 AM, Stastny Richard wrote:

> I have a problem with the language in section 1.3 Call Termination

Richard,

Thanks for the critique. You are right, that section confuses  
termination for routing.

Another early comment I got back was from Hannes regarding CDRs and  
reconciliation.  I had marked that out of bounds because I initially  
felt that they were not in scope for this IETF work.  However, that  
was probably more a bias coming through than anything else.  Such a  
decision is really up to the working group.

Speaking for myself and my employer, CDRs and reconciliation are  
legacy complications given to us by the PSTN.  There is a strong  
desire to see zero-cost calls enabled by peering, making these types  
of things irrelevant.  You can already see that many places in the  
industry.

-andy

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:11:38 +0200

>of things irrelevant.  You can already see that many places in the 

This is basically two issues: one is billing (to the end-customer) and the
other is accounting (or settlement between providers)

The intersting thing one can observe especially with mobile operators is
that they go for flat-rate bundles for subscriber billing, but still require
termination charges for inbound calls.
 
This leads e.g. in Austria that you may call other networks for zero to 5 cents/minute,
but the calling operator stiil has to pay 10 centsand more  for delivering the call to the terminating
operator.
 
Richard