[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

Richard and all others

I wonder if those now humming against this statement (and who were all strangely silent 5 weeks ago) would support any kind of statement concerning applicability and scope. Or is it the case that the solution supported by both drafts is considered to apply to all devices, ANs and VSPs that provide some form of internet access. If so, is it irrelevant whether the solution is actually suitable for a particular type of AN or VSP (e.g. cellular AN, IMS based VSP)? For example, is it irrelevant whether significant additional support from an AN or VSP to which the solution might be applied would be needed in order to access legacy PSAPs, handoff to the circuit domain, authenticate the caller and provide access to non-subscribed users? Is it further irrelevant whether the solution would even work for a particular device, AN or VSP without substantial changes to the latter? In other words, is the solution now considered so sacrosanct that any adaptation must come from the rest of the infrastructure and not from the solution itself in the case of any mismatch? If the consensus answers to these questions are all yes, then I would have to agree that including the currently disputed statement or anything of a similar nature would be inconsistent and unnecessary. Of course, the representatives of the potentially affected portions of infrastructure should be forgiven for disagreeing with the basic premise - and may be expected to offer some type of protest!

Kind Regards

Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes at bbn.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:07 PM
To: Edge, Stephen
Cc: Gellens, Randall; Henning Schulzrinne; Stark, Barbara; ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

Stephen,

As was noted in the meeting, it is *always* possible that there are 
alternative solutions out there when you're talking about the Internet. 
  TCP vs. UDP, POP vs. IMAP, FTP vs. HTTP vs. BitTorrent, SIMPLE vs. 
XMPP, SASL vs. TLS, S/MIME vs. OpenPGP.  None of the many RFCs out there 
have explicit statements that somebody else might do it differently 
because it's obvious that they can.

So I don't really think conveying the possibility of other 
implementations is actually useful at all, technically speaking.

That means that the only real purpose of such a statement is rhetorical, 
and as we've seen in a few messages here, some people misconstrue the 
rhetoric to mean that this system has constrained applicability.  Given 
that, I'd rather leave it off unless we can avoid that impression.

--Richard




Edge, Stephen wrote:
> All
> 
> I would have thought that motivation should be irrelevant. There are a lot of motives at work here. Should we assume that the document was originally written with only the purest and most altruistic motives (e.g. no thought of business or academic interest at stake)?
> 
> The issue is whether the current statement serves a useful purpose in conveying the possibility (well known to be true) of alternative solutions not fully aligned with the current drafts. Nothing in the statement implies that the current drafts are necessarily deficient or that alternative solutions must necessarily be used for some scenarios (even though they optionally can be).
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Stephen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne; Stark, Barbara
> Cc: ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
> 
> At 11:14 AM -0400 4/28/09, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
>>  It is clear that the text has ulterior motives to restrict the 
>> applicability of the document.
> 
>  From my view, the text does not restrict the applicability, nor is 
> there a desire to do so.  The text does clarify the assumptions of 
> the rest of the text in the document, which I think is helpful.
>