Subject: Question about scope of SPIRITS

From: Simon Tsang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:17:02 -0500

Hello,

I've read the initial protocol direction document and have been following 
discussions on this list with great interest.  One question has remained in 
my mind about the scope of the SPIRITS WG.

In figure 1 of draft-faynberg-spirits-protocol-00.txt, interfaces B, D, and 
H to/from the Service Management System (SMS) have been included.  Are 
these interfaces to be included in the scope of this WG?  Interfaces D 
(SN-SMS) and H (SMS-SCP) are PSTN/IN only, but have not been defined by 
ITU-T/ETSI.  I assume that interface B (SMS-SPIRITS server) will be an IP 
based protocol designed by this WG.

Please help me clarify these issues.

Regards,
Simon

--
* Simon Tsang (Ph.D)
* Telcordia Technologies (http://www.telcordia.com)
* Research Scientist, Service Integration Research group
*
* E-mail: [email-masked]
* Phone: +1 973 829 4511
* Fax: +1 973 829 5889

---

From: [email-masked] (Igor Faynberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:23:55 -0500

Simon Tsang wrote:

>ITU-T/ETSI.  

A very accurate statement. (To nit-pick, the interface WAS defined; it is
the protocol that was not, but really those are just words.)

>I assume that interface B (SMS-SPIRITS server) will be an IP 

Yes, this is what we propose. In fact, the architecture is pretty much
the same as that of PINT, where the same interface is to be used for the
PINT MIB. We already have the PINT MIB draft, which we will soon send
for the WG last call (i.e., as soon as the IESG approves the PINT Protocol
draft). You may want to look at this. The SPIRITS MIB may be designed along
the same lines. 

I actually think that some would disagree with the idea that the SMS-server
interface is the SNMP-based one, but I personally don't see what else could
be done. Another entity and another interface? But why? And it is high time
to bring the unified service management to life.

(The last paragraph is to indicate that my response indicates the authors'
opinion and proposal to the WG; there has not been any discussion in the group 
yet.  After it takes place, the chairs will report the consensus.)

Igor Faynberg