[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp-00.txt
Lawrence,
Thanks for the comments. Please see the responses below that begin
with [YU].
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:lconroy at insensate.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 8:17 PM
To: Yu, James; Rich Shockey (Contact)
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp-00.txt
Hi James, Richard, folks,
many thanks for forwarding this. I was a little surprised that James
didn't mention it on list. You must have beaten him to it.
(i) The formatting is borked on the draft - this makes it hard to read
as the text clashes with/runs into the headers.
[YU] The problem is caused by the "long" header that makes it seem to be
part of the main texts. I'll try to shorten the header to increase the
readability.
(ii) I AssUMe that the draft is intended to update RFC 4355. It should
state that in the header, explain how it updates it (by adding a new
sub-type), AND it should refer to RFC 4355 in the normative references.
[YU] Yes, it updates RFC 4355. I'll reflect that in the title and add
RFC 4355 in the Normative References section.
(iii) Whilst we're at it, it IS confusing to have the Enumservice &
URI registration intermingled throughout the draft.
The CNAM document has a MUCH clearer separation. I hope that by -07
this will be as easy to read :).
[YU] I'll try to make it clearer in the next version.
(iv) It is NOT clear how SMPP fits with IMS (or doesn't). If it
doesn't, then why have refs. to 3GPP IMS specs (notably 24.341 version
7.2.0)? If it does, then I'd strongly recommend referring out to the
3GPP architecture diagrams, and the reference points they specify - it
made life easier in getting 4355 through its Loooooong gestation
period in the IESG.
From experience, you WILL need to explain how these all fit together
- and frankly, I think that would be a very useful addition to the
next version of the draft.
[YU] SMPP has no relationship with IMS. Right now in IMS the IP-SM-GW
only supports SS7 and SIP. But because the SMSC/SMS GW products support
SMPP and not SIP (at least not now), an operator can advertise via
Carrier ENUM that its SMS GW/SMS Router/IP-SM-GW can support SMPP. I'll
clarify that IP-SM-GW supports SS7 and SIP in the 3GPP specifications
but an operator can make an implementation decision to have IP-SM-GW
support SMPP to receive incoming SMS traffic.
(iv) Regardless of how widely it may (or may not) be implemented, if
you're going to specify a URI scheme, then pointing to the protocol
spec would be good:
- The SMPP Forum doesn't exist any more.
- The SMS Forum (into which it morphed) has also shut down.
+ However, its web site still has links to the specs. In the case of
SMPP, it is at <http://www.smsforum.net/smppv50.pdf.zip>.
? That version appears to be later than the interim version to which
the internet draft refers.
[YU] I'll use "SMS Forum" and v5.0.
(v) Hmm... I don't think that all of the 3GPP references are quite
right:
- TS 23.811 should I guess be TR 23.811. That ended at release 8.0.0.
I quote the last sentence from the TR's conclusions: "The architecture
and flows have been transferred to TS 23.204 [5] and this Technical
Report will not be updated anymore. For an accurate and up-to-date
description of service-level interworking, please refer to TS 23.204
[5]."
- Likewise for the other study. Unless things have changed, all xx.8xx
docs are studies/reports (TR), not standards (TS).
- For the rest of the 3GPP references, they seem about right.
(If anyone has any doubts about SIP's capacity for generating gainful
employment, please look at the 3GPP specs.
Get the 2008-03 status document from
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/2008-03/
> and click on the links in that status doc to peel back the many
layers of the onion.
I did, and it took me a good couple of hours to stop laughing. This
explains a lot about SIP/SIPPING/SIMPLE/Bliss/...
It also explain why SMPP might be widely implemented, even if the SMPP
spec is at risk of disappearing from the 'Net:).
[YU] It should be TR 23.811 v8.0.0 instead of TS 23.811 v1.2.1. Since
TS 23.204 would include updated info, I'll also include TS 23.204 in the
Informative References section. 3GPP first specified the IP-SM-GW to
support SMS over IP. When addressing service-level interworking (SM-IM
interworking), it was assumed/decided that IP-SM-GW would also be the
entity that supports service-level interworking.
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum