Subject: RE: [SPIRITS] Half-Pint

From: "Michael O'Doherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:04:45 +0100

I thought I would try again with this message as I realize most people were
probably tied up in the IETF meetings when I sent it last.
 
In case it is not clear below, I am interested in whatever is the best way
to tackle the requirements that the half-pint protocol addresses, whether
that be by refining half-pint or by evolving PINT or a SPIRITS like
protocol.
 
I think this clearly lines up with the goals of these groups so I'm very
keen to get feedback/direction from the lists.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

The Half-Pint internet draft is now properly formatted (more or less) and
available at: 

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-odoherty-half-pint-00.txt
<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-odoherty-half-pint-00.txt>  

The idea behind the protocol is to try to provide something relatively
lightweight which will still provide a useful set of services for a
developer tying together web and PSTN services. The approach is to trade off
flexibility and completeness for simplicity - hence the name (which is not
cast in stone).

My feeling is that this protocol, while not having the same ultimate
flexibility is simpler to get up and running today than a Pint/Spirits like
approach, especially from the perspective of a web developer. Part of the
thinking is that it is relatively well bounded and part of it is that it
avoids using SIP as a transport as SIP is not quite mature enough or
deployed enough today for the task - I'd be very interested to hear comments
on this view - is there anyone who feels that it would be better to use SIP
as the transport, maybe extending Pint ?

The main aim is to get something working quickly (say within four months as
a goal) that provides the type of functionality contained in the half-pint
draft and allows service developers to start their work, and that has some
sort of consensus behind it from a standards point of view. 

If anybody has views on this approach or on better ways to achieve the same
goal, I'd be very happy to work with you to try to meet these objectives.

Cheers, 

Mick.

---

From: Bobby Sardana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:38:25 -0700

Greetings:

The draft seems interesting for PSTN service initiation. However, it
follows the AVP (Attribute Value Pair) model where an action is followed
by its value. You can model it like RADIUS or DIAMETER, (AAA WG) which
provide definitions for AVPs and their usage, to  allow addition of new
actions & values.

Regards,

Bobby Sardana.
[email-masked]

Michael O'Doherty wrote:

>  I thought I would try again with this message as I realize most
> people were probably tied up in the IETF meetings when I sent it
> last.In case it is not clear below, I am interested in whatever is the
> best way to tackle the requirements that the half-pint protocol
> addresses, whether that be by refining half-pint or by evolving PINT
> or a SPIRITS like protocol.I think this clearly lines up with the
> goals of these groups so I'm very keen to get feedback/direction from
> the
> lists.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Half-Pint
> internet draft is now properly formatted (more or less) and available
> at:
>
> developer tying together web and PSTN services. The approach is to
> trade off flexibility and completeness for simplicity - hence the name
> (which is not cast in stone).
>
> flexibility is simpler to get up and running today than a Pint/Spirits
> like approach, especially from the perspective of a web developer.
> Part of the thinking is that it is relatively well bounded and part of
> it is that it avoids using SIP as a transport as SIP is not quite
> mature enough or deployed enough today for the task - I'd be very
> interested to hear comments on this view - is there anyone who feels
> that it would be better to use SIP as the transport, maybe extending
> Pint ?
>
> The main aim is to get something working quickly (say within four
> months as a goal) that provides the type of functionality contained in
> the half-pint draft and allows service developers to start their work,
> and that has some sort of consensus behind it from a standards point
> of view.
>
> If anybody has views on this approach or on better ways to achieve the
> same goal, I'd be very happy to work with you to try to meet these
> objectives.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mick.