Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

["Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson at andrew.com>]

Hi Stephen,

I'm convinced that the ECRIT architecture is the only solution that will work for ALL forms of Internet access.

I then offer you an alternative to the "applicability statement" you request:

  Where you believe that the ECRIT architecture does not apply, state why.  Include also a description of why interworking with such an architecture is not necessary.

The great thing about this is that you can do this in the forum of your choice.  You don't have to deal with the recalcitrant bunch at the IETF.  In fact, I'd encourage you to consider that approach.

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Edge, Stephen
> Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2009 9:23 AM
> To: Richard Barnes; Gellens, Randall; Henning Schulzrinne; Stark,
> Barbara; ECRIT
> Subject: 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]