Subject: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering Verbiage

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:48:55 -0600

At the conference in Chicago, there was some confusion around the
difference between Assisted and Indirect peering.  I have updated the
Assisted Peering section (4.2.3) to be the following:

In this case, some entity (usually a federation, see Section 5) provides
peering assistance to either the originating or terminating peer by
providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) on behalf of the peers
(which is not itself a SSP) to bridge calls between participating
networks.  The assisting entity may provide information relating to a
direct (Section 4.2.1) or indirect (Section 4.2.2) peer as necessary on
behalf of the originating or terminating peer. 

Please let me know if this clears up the section and eliminates the
confusion.

If so, I will submit a version -10 tomorrow.

Thanks...

--Daryl

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

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:08:14 +0100

Daryl,

This seems to reflect the orthogonality between assisted and
direct/indirect peering. I don't think the wording is quite right,
however.

1. In the first sentence the words "(which is not itself a SSP)" follow
"peers", which is grammatically incorrect. In fact those words are
intended to refer to something earlier in the sentence, so the order of
the sentence needs changing.

2. It refers to 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 for definitions of "direct peer" and
"indirect peer" respectively, yet those sections do not define those
terms - the define "direct peering" and "indirect peering".

3. The use of the word "bridge" has connotations of conference mixing.

4.  "between participating networks" - shouldn't this be "between
participating service providers"?

5. In 4.2.2 we talk about "originating service provider" and
"terminating service provider", so we shouldn't switch to saying
"originating peer" and terminating peer".

The following words would fix these problems (new or revised words in
caps):

"In this case, some entity (usually a federation, see Section 5) THAT IS
NOT ITSELF A SERVICE PROVIDER provides peering assistance to either the
originating or terminating SERVICE PROVIDER by providing one or more
functions (see Section 4.3) THAT ASSIST IN ESTABLISHING calls between
THOSE SERVICE PROVIDERS.  The assisting entity may provide information
relating to direct (Section 4.2.1) or indirect (Section 4.2.2) PEERING
as necessary." 

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 03 August 2007 20:49
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering Verbiage
>

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:14:35 -0600

John,

Thanks for the feedback.  I can understand how the current verbiage can
cause confusion.  I would like to suggest the following revision based
on your feedback:

"In this case, some entity (usually a 3rd party SSP or federation)
provides peering assistance to either the originating or terminating SSP
by providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) assisting in the
establishment of SIP dialogs between one or more SSP's.  The assisting
entity may provide information relating to direct (see Section 4.2.1) or
indirect (see Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary."

In this case, I am including the ability for an individual SSP or
federation to provide this capability in an orthogonal manner.  I
cleaned up the other language to help create the separation I think you
are looking for below.  Let me know if I accomplished this.

--Daryl

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:02:58 +0100

Daryl,

Compared with my proposal (and also compared with your original
proposal), your new proposal does not say that the assisting entity is
not an SSP. I agree it could also be an SSP, but when playing the role
of an assisting entity it is not acting as an SSP. I don't have a strong
objection to your new words, if everyone is happy that we don't need to
say that the assisting entity is not an SSP.

On a further point, your new proposal talks about dialog establishment
rather than calls, which extends its scope (to cover SUBSCRIBE-initiated
dialogs). That is fine, but they what about non-dialog-based
communications (e.g., using the MESSAGE and PUBLISH methods)?

John

> Sent: 06 August 2007 23:15
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted 
> Peering Verbiage
> 
> John,
>

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:01 -0600

John,

I guess I see the SSP in question as being capable of serving a dual
role as an assisting entity and an SSP, or it could be serving as simply
an assisting entity as you stated.  Since, no one else seems to be
providing feedback, I guess it is up to us to decide.  Also, I was
trying to broaden the usage of SIP in peering by simply stating "dialog
establishment" instead of calls.  I think MESSAGE and PUBLISH are also
valid SIP messages in peering.  Perhaps I should simply state it as SIP
messaging or something similar.

Thanks for your feedback.

--Daryl

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:32:06 +0200

Daryl,
 
I agree with John.
 
In this case we are talking roles, and each role should be uniquely identified.
In practice one entity may always serve more then one role.
 
Richard

________________________________

From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thu 09.08.2007 22:40
To: Elwell, John
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering Verbiage

John,

--Daryl

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:18:04 +0100

Daryl,

Yes, the dual role is certainly a possibility, but that is not relevant
to the definition of assisted. So I would suggest delete "SSP".

On the other point, we should use "SIP requests" rather than "SIP
messages" or "SIP messaging". However, perhaps it can do more than
assisting in the routing of SIP requests, so I think we still need to
retain the bit about dialogs as well, and perhaps even mention sessions
too (since sessions introduce other considerations).

"In this case, some entity (usually a 3rd party or federation)
provides peering assistance to either the originating or terminating SSP
by providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) assisting in the
routing of SIP requests and the establishment of SIP dialogs and
sessions
between one or more SSP's.  The assisting
entity may provide information relating to direct (see Section 4.2.1) or
indirect (see Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary."

John 

> Sent: 09 August 2007 21:40
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:46:42 -0600

That works for me.  I will update the draft.  Since, this is the last
revision necessary from Chicago, I will submit a new version of the
draft today unless anyone else has any issues.

Thanks...

--Daryl

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:47:31 -0600

Thanks for the feedback.  I am updating the draft to align with this.
--Daryl

---

From: "Rodrig, Benny (Benny)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:52:11 -0400

What does "between one or more SSP's" mean here? Does it imply some use
case involving just one SSP? Why not say just "between SSP's"?

Benny

-----Original Message-----
From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:47 AM
To: Elwell, John
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering
Verbiage

Thanks...

--Daryl

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:18 +0100, Elwell, John wrote:
> Daryl,
> 
> Yes, the dual role is certainly a possibility, but that is not 
> relevant to the definition of assisted. So I would suggest delete
"SSP".
> retain the bit about dialogs as well, and perhaps even mention 
> sessions too (since sessions introduce other considerations).
> 
> provides peering assistance to either the originating or terminating 
> SSP by providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) assisting in 
> the routing of SIP requests and the establishment of SIP dialogs and 
> sessions between one or more SSP's.  The assisting entity may provide 
> information relating to direct (see Section 4.2.1) or indirect (see 
> Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary."
> 
> John
> 

> > role as an assisting entity and an SSP, or it could be serving as 
> > simply an assisting entity as you stated.  Since, no one else seems 
> > to be providing feedback, I guess it is up to us to decide. Also, I 
> > was trying to broaden the usage of SIP in peering by simply stating 
> > "dialog establishment" instead of calls.  I think MESSAGE and 
> > PUBLISH are also valid SIP messages in peering.  Perhaps I should 
> > simply state it as SIP messaging or something similar.
> > 
> > > > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering

> > > > Verbiage
> > > > 
> > > > John,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the feedback.  I can understand how the current 
> > > > verbiage can cause confusion.  I would like to suggest the 
> > > > following
> > revision based
> > > > on your feedback:
> > > > 
> > > > "In this case, some entity (usually a 3rd party SSP or 
> > > > federation) provides peering assistance to either the 
> > > > originating or terminating SSP by providing one or more 
> > > > functions (see Section 4.3)
> > assisting in the
> > > > entity may provide information relating to direct (see Section 
> > > > 4.2.1) or indirect (see Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary."
> > > > 
> > > > In this case, I am including the ability for an individual SSP 
> > > > or federation to provide this capability in an orthogonal 
> > > > manner.  I cleaned up the other language to help create the 
> > > > separation I think you are looking for below.  Let me know if I 
> > > > accomplished this.
> > > > 
> > > > --Daryl
> > > > 
> > > > > "terminating service provider", so we shouldn't switch to 
> > > > > saying "originating peer" and terminating peer".
> > > > > 
> > > > > > providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) on behalf 
> > > > > > of the peers (which is not itself a SSP) to bridge calls 
> > > > > > between
> > participating
> > > > > > direct (Section 4.2.1) or indirect (Section 4.2.2) peer as 
> > > > > > necessary on behalf of the originating or terminating peer.
> > > > > >

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:59:28 -0600

Meaning it is a relationship between an originating SSP and one or more
SSP peers.

--Daryl

---

From: "Rodrig, Benny (Benny)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:03:22 -0400

Then the text would probably be clearer saying "between the SSP and one
or more SSP peers"

Benny

-----Original Message-----
From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:59 AM
To: Rodrig, Benny (Benny)
Cc: Elwell, John; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speermint] Terminology Draft: New Assisted Peering
Verbiage

--Daryl

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 10:52 -0400, Rodrig, Benny (Benny) wrote:
> What does "between one or more SSP's" mean here? Does it imply some 
> use case involving just one SSP? Why not say just "between SSP's"?
> 
> Benny
> 
> > assisting in the routing of SIP requests, so I think we still need 
> > to retain the bit about dialogs as well, and perhaps even mention 

> > SSP by providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) assisting 
> > in the routing of SIP requests and the establishment of SIP dialogs 
> > and sessions between one or more SSP's.  The assisting entity may 
> > provide information relating to direct (see Section 4.2.1) or 
> > > simply an assisting entity as you stated.  Since, no one else 
> > > seems to be providing feedback, I guess it is up to us to decide. 
> > > Also, I was trying to broaden the usage of SIP in peering by 
> > > simply stating "dialog establishment" instead of calls.  I think 
> > > MESSAGE and PUBLISH are also valid SIP messages in peering.  
> > > Perhaps I should simply state it as SIP messaging or something
similar.
> > > > > Peering

> > > > > separation I think you are looking for below.  Let me know if 
> > > > > I accomplished this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --Daryl
> > > > > 

> > > > > > > In this case, some entity (usually a federation, see 
> > > > > > > Section
> > > > > > > 5) provides
> > > > > > > providing one or more functions (see Section 4.3) on 
> > > > > > > behalf of the peers (which is not itself a SSP) to bridge 
> > > > > > > calls between
> > > participating

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:15:40 -0600

Actually, after reading it again, I think it would be fine to simply say
"between peers".

--Daryl