Re: [Speermint] Comments on draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Speermint] Comments on draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08
Hi Jean-Francois,
I got a comment. See in-line.
Thanks.
On 6/27/08 8:19 AM, "Jean-Francois Mule" <jf.mule at cablelabs.com> wrote:
> 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 ietfFrom speermint-bounces at ietf.org Fri Jun 27 08:35:20 2008
Return-Path: <speermint-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: speermint-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-speermint-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF953A69BB;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: speermint at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: speermint at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A123A69B2
for <speermint at core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.001
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768,
HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396,
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id GAPmLbuuhE5K for <speermint at core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com
[24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8823A67FA
for <speermint at ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.118])
by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.6663708;
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:34:45 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by
PACDCEXCSMTP04.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:34:46 -0400
Received: from 68.239.242.4 ([68.239.242.4]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com
([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server
webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.152]) with Microsoft Exchange
Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:34:43 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:34:41 -0400
From: "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee at cable.comcast.com>
To: Jean-Francois Mule <jf.mule at cablelabs.com>,
Otmar Lendl <lendl at nic.at>
Message-ID: <C48A80D1.648%yiu_lee at cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [Speermint] Comments on
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08
Thread-Index: AcjYTG1ODT7lQOSPRCa0/w+L0UkO9wAAiNgwAAcwDK8In-Reply-To: <9AAEDF491EF7CA48AB587781B8F5D7C60128FAEC at srvxchg3.cablelabs.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 15:34:46.0360 (UTC)
FILETIME=[54119D80:01C8D86B]
Cc: speermint at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Speermint] Comments on
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08
X-BeenThere: speermint at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group <speermint.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>,
<mailto:speermint-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/speermint>
List-Post: <mailto:speermint at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speermint-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>,
<mailto:speermint-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==============11904934=="
Sender: speermint-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: speermint-bounces at ietf.org
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Title: Re: [Speermint] Comments on draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08
Hi Jean-Francois,
I got a comment. See in-line.
Thanks.
On 6/27/08 8:19 AM, "Jean-Francois Mule" <jf.mule at cablelabs.com> wrote:
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.
[YL] We want to capture what we have today (current practices) in the market for references. IMHO, what we capture here is to tell what is happening today. We are not defining the requirements because this will be done by requirement draft. We hope that by showing what we have today can help to identify the requirements. I believe that we didn’t say this is a reference for requirements. We said “These use cases will assist in identifying requirements and future words for VoIP Peering using SIP”. Do you think we should re-word this sentence to make it more clear? Do you have any good suggestion?
> 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.
[YL] Ok, let’s work on this in the next draft.
> 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
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
