Subject: [Speermint] Review of the Terminology Draft

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:23:06 +0200

Hi all,

I went through the terminology draft. Here are a few questions and comments:

* Avoid referring to the working group and the working group name.
Reason: The working group changes it's charter and will be closed. The 
document should talk about a subject rather than what the SPEERMINT WG 
is about todo.

Instead of writing the following sentence in the abstract:
"
    This document defines the terminology that is to be used by the
    Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Working Group
    (SPEERMINT).
"
you could just tell the reader what peering is and that the document 
describes the terminology about it.

Btw, the same is true with mentioning the ENUM working group.

* Avoid description of process related aspects, such as:
"
   It has as its primary objective to focus the working
    group during its discussions, and when writing requirements, gap
    analysis and other solutions oriented documents.
"

* Section 2: You write:

  The ENUM Working Group is primarily concerned with the acquisition of
    Call Addressing Data, or CAD, while the SPEERMINT Working Group is
    focused on the use of such CAD.
                   ^^^^
Could you be a bit more explicit what "use" means?

* Section 3.1.: You write:

"
   More specifically, the CAD is the set of parameters that the outgoing
    border elements need to complete the call, and may include:
"

In the first sentence of Section 3.1 you say that the SIP URI is used 
for making the routing decision. With the list you provide following the 
above paragraph I think that this is not entirely true. You want to make 
the routing decision based on a number of things. I don't think that 
these parameters are already agreed and hence they are more touching the 
solution aspects rather than the terminology itself.

* Section 3.2: Call Routing Terminology

I am not too happy with the definition. It essentially says "Call 
routing requires a lot of stuff to route a call".

* Section 3.4:
Change the following paragraph from:

"
For purposes of this document and the SPEERMINT and ENUM Working
    Groups, a peer network is defined to be the set of SIP servers and
    end-users (customers) that are controlled by a single administrative
    domain and can be reached via some IP path.
"

to:

"
This document defines a peer network as a set of SIP UASs and
SIP UACs (customers) that are controlled by a single administrative
domain and can be reached via IP.
"

* A figure would be extremely helpful with the definitions in Section 
4.3., 4.4, 4.5.

* Section 6 needs to be shortened to tell the reader what a federation 
is. You might, for example delete the entire first paragraph
You might also want to make sure that you capture terminology rather 
than solution components (e.g., within the examples).

* Security Considerations: Just state that this document is about 
terminology and does not contain introduce new security relevant terms. 
You might, however, think about the policy aspects since they are indeed 
security relevant.

* I would delete the RFC 2434 reference in the IANA consideration section.

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:02:12 -0700

Hannes, 

	Thanks for the careful reading. I'll update
	accordingly...

	--dmm