Subject: [Speermint] SPEERMINT Scope

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:25:54 +0200

Hi all,

please decide whether you see the following topics in scope of the 
working group. This aspect is relevant for those working group members 
that are currently writing documents:

a) NAT traversal

b) Firewall traversal

c) Quality of Service signaling

Furthermore, you might want to think whether a discussion about 
path-coupled or path-decoupled signaling is relevant. Path-decoupled 
signaling would be relevant for the interaction between SF<->MF. 
Path-coupled signaling could also be relevant for SF<->MF with respect 
to authorization.

(In my opinion the architecture and the message flow document would have 
to deal with these issues, if they are in scope.)

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:46:09 -0700

> Path-coupled signaling could also be relevant for SF<->MF 
> with respect to authorization.

"With respect to authorization" implies that you need to couple signaling
and media to authorize media flows, but as I described in
draft-wing-session-auth-00.txt (and presented at the first speermint
meeting), you can authorize media flows without coupling signaling and
media.

-d

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:22:16 +0200

Hi Dan,

I am familiar with the authorization aspects and there are indeed a 
couple of models that could be described.

The big question is: Do people see a need to describe them as part of 
the work in this working group?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Klaus Darilion <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:28:46 +0200

> that are currently writing documents:

IMO should be out of scope

> b) Firewall traversal

IMO out of scope

> c) Quality of Service signaling

This can be done with preconditions. Thus, the QoS mechanism itself is 
out of scope, but interaction with QoS mechanisms should be allowed.

> Path-coupled signaling could also be relevant for SF<->MF with respect 

Is it really necessary for a NNI specification to define if SF and MF 
are coupled inside the providers network?

regards
klaus

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:18:59 +0200

Hi Klaus,

thanks for your feedback.

Responding to your question: Should the SF-MF interaction be described?

With the IETF QoS work QoS signaling was largely decoupled from SIP 
signaling, i.e., separates protocol were developed. Hence, you would 
have to agree on a specific protocol for usage between different 
networks. This was recently been raised in various places.

I think that some work would be necessary but I don't think it should be 
  done in SPEERMINT.

Ciao
Hannes

Klaus Darilion schrieb:
>> (In my opinion the architecture and the message flow document would 
>> have to deal with these issues, if they are in scope.)
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>