Subject: New Internet Draft

From: "Mark Gibson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:48:08 +0100

The following Internet Draft has been submitted :

Title:		Use of SIP for the Reservation of QoS guaranteed Paths
Authors:	M. Gibson, J. Crowcroft
Filename:	draft-gibson-sip-qos-resv-00.txt
Date:		October 1999

And subject to its approval, we will present it at the 46th IETF.

Abstract:	This draft defines a modification of the use of the SIP
protocol to
   	perform route reservation. These modifications are applied to two of
   	the existing SIP Methods: INVITE and REGISTER. The modifications
   	allow the INVITE method to be used to find the best path across a
   	particular network based on QoS metrics. The route choice is able to
   	be restricted at the network edge. The proposed modifications also
   	allow the REGISTER method to be used as a means of disseminating
   	information necessary to determine these QoS metrics. This
   	information can be used to route INVITEs away from known areas of
   	congestion.

Available from:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gibson-sip-qos-resv-00.txt

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:27:58 -0500

The following Internet Draft has been submitted and I count to be discussed:
<draft-sinnreich-interdomain-sip-qos-osp-00.txt>
for the SIP Working Group.

         Title           : Interdomain IP Communications with QoS,
                           Authorization and Usage Reporting
         Author(s)       : H.Sinnreich, S.Donovan, D.Rawlins, S.Thomas
         Filename        : draft-sinnreich-interdomain-sip-qos-osp-00.txt
         Pages           : 23
         Date            : October 22, 1999

Abstract
IP communications such as telephony may require quality of service
equal or better than available on digital circuit switched networks.
Service providers will ensure QoS only if authorization and payments
are supported across the domains where the communication is taking
place. The message exchange for session initiation, authorization,
policy support, QoS and usage reporting is more complex than the mes-
sage exchange for each of the protocols in part for these functions,
since session parameters have to be passed between messages. The
inter-process dependencies require interleaving of messages from the
different protocols in a certain sequence to pass on the required
parameters.

Policy based QoS is provided by RSVP enabled routers and mapped to
802 style LANs. RSVP aggregation is used for Differentiated Services
QoS across the backbone.

The present document provides the framework and examples of the mes-
sage exchange between clients and servers on networks of Internet
service providers or corporate networks across a common IP backbone.
Outsourcing to a clearinghouse of inter-domain authorization and
usage reporting is also shown.

The draft has been posted at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sinnreich-interdomain-sip-qos-osp-
00.txt

The pdf format of the draft is available from the web site
http://www.greycouncil.com/sip/drafts/ (with other sip drafts).

The URL is
http://www.greycouncil.com/sip/drafts/draft-interdomain-sip-qos-osp-00.pdf

Thanks, Henry

Henry Sinnreich
MCI WorldCom
400 International Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75081, USA

---

From: Anil Yelundur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:35:44 -0500

I found the Call-Flows very helpful to understand how the Session set-up, QoS &
usage reporting occurs. However there were certain inconsistencies  in these
call-flows -> for example in figure 7, I noticed that 21 <UsageInd> is being
initiated by SIP2 instead of POL2 and the reply 22 <UsageCnf> from the CH is
going to SIP2 instead of POL2. In figure 1, the message sequence for the REQ LDP
between the SIP1, POL1 & R1 is missing.
Regards,
Anil Yelundur

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:15:12 -0500

Anil Yelundur wrote:
> going to SIP2 instead of POL2.
Yes, the CH messages should be with POL2 instead with SIP2.

In figure 1, the message sequence
> for the REQ LDP
Yes, you are right.
Thanks for pointing this out!

We also apologize for other that we noticed later:

Figure 2
In the text version of the draft, figure 2 inadvertently dropped messages
18 - 22.

Figure 4
In the text version, figure 4, message 4 should be RPT.

Figure6
In both the text and pdf versions figure 6:
 1- 400 OK should be 200 OK.
 2- drop either message 4 or message 23. Message 4 will free up the
resources earlier.

Thanks again,

Henry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Anil
> Yelundur
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 10:36 AM
> To: Henry Sinnreich
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: New Internet Draft
> >          Filename        :
> draft-sinnreich-interdomain-sip-qos-osp-00.txt
> >          Pages           : 23
> >          Date            : October 22, 1999
> >
> > Abstract

---

From: Francois Menard List Account <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:40:11 -0400 (EDT)

What, no dual invites needed ?  Tell it to Ms. Kazai ...

-=Francois=-