Re: [Speermint] Comments on draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08

["Jean-Francois Mule" <jf.mule at cablelabs.com>]

Otmar wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:lendl at nic.at]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:54 AM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: speermint at ietf.org; adam.uzelac at globalcrossing.com;
> yiu_lee at cable.comcast.com
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] Comments on draft-ietf-speermint-voip-
> consolidated-usecases-08
> 
> Jean-Francois Mule wrote:
> >    Here are some comments based on the draft-08 revision.
>  >
> > 1. Technical comments
> >
> 
> Jean-Francois,
> 
> Your comments question the technical soundness of some the
> scenarios
> described in this document. That's a valid point, if this were a
> document
> which describes how speermint envisions peerings to happen in the
> future.
> 
> As I see the purpose of this document (see Abstract), it is just
> supposed
> to just document what's out there, including warts, kludges and
> stupidities.
I read the abstract and got that part fine.  So I would be ok as long as it is worded as such in the text.
What concerns me is this:
In abstract: 
	"This document captures them to provide a reference."
	=> what kind of reference?

Then in the intro:
     "These use cases will assist in identifying requirements and future works for VoIP Peering using SIP."
 	=> that is where I get concerns.

On the one hand, the document says: this is what's deployed today in abstract.  On the other hand, the next paragraphs say: this is going to be used to derive requirements. If we are all ok documenting what's in use today, including kludges, then let's not say that this is a reference for requirements.

> Thus: whatever conclusions we reached with paf (concerning private
> DNS)
> doesn't affect what's deployed right now and that's what this
> document is about.

It does not hurt to then put the right context around such examples and say that while this is deployed, it is preferable to do <this>, where <this> is something more sound.


> So if I'm not mistaken about the purpose of this document, then we
  Well, as I stated above, you and I have followed the work of working group to some extent and yet, we both read different things.  Think about this document being an RFC, and being read by folks trying to figure out how they could do session peering.  This is where we got to be careful.

> don't
> need reviews saying "this is a stupid way to peer", but "nobody is
> doing it this way today."

Your quotes implied I said this.  I may not recall what I said already but I did not word it that way and folks who have done this that way probably aren't stupid.

Jean-François
> 
> /ol
> --
> // Otmar Lendl <lendl at nic.at>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 //
_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint