Subject: RE: [IPTEL] Use SLP for iptel-gwloc

From: Jeffrey Skelton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:50:47 -0400

Without representing units, then is the assumption that the scope for useful
comparison of cost values is within an ITAD? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning G. Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:59 PM
To: Michael Hammer
Cc: Weibin Zhao; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Use SLP for iptel-gwloc

Michael Hammer wrote:
> 
> Henning,
> 
> Sorry, but as an engineer, providing a measurement without defining the
> units is what leads to things hitting Mars rather than orbiting it.  I
> don't think it is a good idea to imply limits on the scope of an ITAD.
And
> if decisions are to be made based on cost, you can be sure the accountants
> will definitely want to know precisely what the cost is going to be when
> comparing data coming from two different gateways or ITADS.
> 

If somebody can point to a registry of currency symbols (preferably one
that includes Columbia laundry tokens...), this can certainly be added
as a parameter. If I remember past discussions correctly, this territory
is full of landmines, such as:

- what about more complicated charges (first minute costs X, second
minute costs Y, where Y < X or first minute is free);

- unit of charging (second, minute, 6 seconds, etc.)

- time-of-day dependencies (although these are less of an issue here
since the advertisements are updated periodically in all of the
protocols);

etc.

I'm agnostic here, but I suspect that without drawing pretty clear scope
boundaries, this can turn into a "tariff expression language", which I
don't think you'd want to engineer. That way also lie "restraint of
trade" and other nasty things that the IETF does its very best to stay
out of. (Basically, as soon as you specify anything specific that smacks
of business models, you're favoring Joe's model over Jane's model, which
may make Jane sufficiently unhappy to call a lawyer.)

SLP (and the other proposals) is extensible so that you can add cost
models appropriate for your customers. Then, if people don't like your
notion of how costs are computed, they'll complain to your marketing
folks, which I find preferable to talking to lawyers. (I'm not sure what
would happen if somebody were to simply describe a template or extension
as an informational RFC or IANA registration, without any blessing by
the IETF; I suspect that that is the right thing to do in this case, if
you want to go there.)
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:04:09 -0400

> comparison of cost values is within an ITAD?

That's at least my assumption. It may well be that there's an entity
that translates these numbers into something visible to the outside, but
as far as I know, TRIP doesn't have a means of indicating
dollars-and-cents "billable" cost information, either, so it's not clear
how that would work (except by some vendor-defined attribute).

This does not preclude somebody defining attributes that are more
specific or concrete; I suspect that industry associations with more
lawyers at hand and a more business-oriented focus are better places for
this than the IETF.
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs