Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGfFB-00077V-1m; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:45:37 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGfFA-000779-7k; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:45:36 -0500 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGfF8-0002D1-Ru; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:45:36 -0500 Received: from RSHOCKEYLTXP (neustargw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.233]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l1CHjK1a023539; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:45:26 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: <010401c74ecd$8f7dd880$95201f0a@cis.neustar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AcdOzY3BxSi5k/k4QYeSlie9Y3uAOQ== X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: richard@shockey.us X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: enum@ietf.org, speermint@ietf.org Subject: [PEPPERMINT] There will not be a Official BOF on PEPPERMINT at IETF Prague X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: richard@shockey.us List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has decided not to hold a BOF on PEPPERMINT "at this time". There are many reasons for this, principally scheduling, which is rather complex this cycle. This action does not imply that our problem statement is bad or that there is not a clear indication that there are folks who want to move forward on the work. We all know this work is important and needs to get done. This list will remain open. What I'm going to try and do is see if I can get a room in Prague for an unofficial BOF so we can collectively discuss what the next steps are before Chicago and we resubmit a BOF plan and agenda. Certainly one of the things we should do before Chicago is refine the current Requirements proposals into something more well defined and coherent. Richard Shockey Director, Member of the Technical Staff NeuStar 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org Skype:"rshockey101" PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEtE7-0004v0-OF; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:17:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEtE6-0004uj-Vu for peppermint@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:17:10 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEtE5-0006pr-I8 for peppermint@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:17:10 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Feb 2007 20:17:08 -0000 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+y31MHc7Gyw9LbdcSRXF4Q5h9ZVzAd2tt1jRMqHT ZgwQ== Message-ID: <45CA33C3.2070001@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:17:07 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Windows/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cullen Jennings Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter References: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org Hi Cullen, sorry for my late response. I read through the problem statement draft and I also reviewed all SPEERMINT drafts (for their previous interim meeting). My impression is that there is no overlap between PEPPERMINT and SPEERMINT. There also seems to be a problem that needs to be solved. I also got this impression from reading the problem statement draft (which is short and precise) but also from talking with others having more expertise in this area. It is a separate question where the work should be done. It is a "management" (=Area Director) decision which working group should do what type of work. I am personally in favor of more working groups with a smaller scope since working group chairs can be more focused on specific tasks in order to push them forward. When I looked at the discussions on the SPEERMINT mailing list, as a sort of indicator for the WG progress, then I am not sure it is a good idea to add new work to SPEERMINT (about 3 mails in 2 months when the PEPPERMINT stuff is not considered). Ciao Hannes Cullen Jennings wrote: > > I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received > much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form a > WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why you > think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the > requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so please > let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). > > Keep in mind that the RAI agenda is very full and to run a BOF, it > will steel time from another WG. > > Thanks, Cullen > > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEbLL-0004ej-Ev; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:11:27 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEZiK-0002AO-FI for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:27:04 -0500 Received: from omr5.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEZiI-0004Zm-7j for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:27:04 -0500 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr5.mgt.netsol.com [10.49.6.68]) by omr5.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l16NR0Xo030360 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:27:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 31006 invoked by uid 78); 6 Feb 2007 23:26:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andy@andybierman.com@75.83.56.110) by ns-omr5.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2007 23:26:47 -0000 Message-ID: <45C90EC8.2050302@andybierman.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:27:04 -0800 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8F3C2107-A83E-47BE-BA4E-E756CDE3C6AB@hxr.us> <2CC2F744-7C20-4388-9DCE-DA3ED85A7E7B@hxr.us> In-Reply-To: <2CC2F744-7C20-4388-9DCE-DA3ED85A7E7B@hxr.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:11:25 -0500 Cc: Cullen Jennings , peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org Andrew Newton wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) wrote: > >> I do not believe that you are missing anything at high level, but >> there are two ways of filling in the gap that you have identified. >> Defining a data model, or defining NETCONF verbs specific to >> provisioning phone numbers ("identities"). There is an ongoing >> discussion in NETCONF nowadays about what is the 'better' way ahead to >> make NETCONF appropriate for applications like peppermint. I agree >> that NETCONF as defined today may not be today the natural fit, but >> they need to learn how to fill that gap in order to become useful in >> applications like peppermint. > > I'm certainly willing to listen, but I have to be honest -- there is a > lot I see in NETCONF that does not seem pleasing. For starters, the > three different bindings: one to SOAP, one to BEEP, and the one to SSH. > On top of that, the binding on top of SOAP seems redundant. Why not > just use SOAP's own RPC mechanism if you are gonna use SOAP? > > But this identifies one of the main differences between SPEERMINT and > PEPPERMINT. SPEERMINT is about SIP optimizations. PEPPERMINT is about > defining the use of another protocol (i.e. EPP, SOAP/HTTP, NETCONF) for > provisioning. > Only the SSH transport mapping is mandatory in NETCONF. The SOAP and SSH mappings may not stay around if they don't get used. I'm not saying PEPPERMINT should use NETCONF. You may decide that it is overkill, due to NE-specific details like non-volatile storage and the different 'write models' (write target is the 'candidate' or the 'running' config), or the document-oriented operations like edit-config or copy-config. If you don't use any NETCONF features except the RPC mechanism, then you might as well use whatever RPC you want, such as the one defined for SOAP/HTTP. > -andy > > Andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEbKf-0004BW-Uj; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:10:45 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEbKe-0004B1-Ab for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:10:44 -0500 Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEbKd-0006bS-1Q for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:10:44 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.110] ([::ffff:72.196.237.170]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:09:46 -0500 id 01588123.45C926DA.000005C4 In-Reply-To: <45C90EC8.2050302@andybierman.com> References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8F3C2107-A83E-47BE-BA4E-E756CDE3C6AB@hxr.us> <2CC2F744-7C20-4388-9DCE-DA3ED85A7E7B@hxr.us> <45C90EC8.2050302@andybierman.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <29502546-0B74-4877-BC03-F05065BDE5A1@hxr.us> From: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:10:25 -0500 To: Andy Bierman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Cc: Cullen Jennings , peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1233486927==" Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --===============1233486927== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_zeke.ecotroph.net-1508-1170810601-0001-2" This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --=_zeke.ecotroph.net-1508-1170810601-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > Only the SSH transport mapping is mandatory in NETCONF. > The SOAP and SSH mappings may not stay around if they don't get used. > I'm not saying PEPPERMINT should use NETCONF. You may decide > that it is overkill, due to NE-specific details like non-volatile > storage and > the different 'write models' (write target is the 'candidate' or > the 'running' config), or the document-oriented operations like > edit-config or copy-config. > > If you don't use any NETCONF features except the RPC mechanism, > then you might as well use whatever RPC you want, such as the > one defined for SOAP/HTTP. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. -andy --=_zeke.ecotroph.net-1508-1170810601-0001-2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mime-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to quoted-printable by courier 0.53.3
On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:27= PM, Andy Bierman wrote:

Only the = SSH transport mapping is mandatory in NETCONF.

The SOAP and SSH mappings may not stay around if= they don't get used.

I'm not saying PEPPERMINT should use NETCONF.=A0 You may decide

that it is overkill, due to NE-specific details like non-= volatile storage and

= the different 'write models' (write target is the 'candidate' or

the 'running' config), or the= document-oriented operations like

edit-config or copy-config.


=

If you don't use any NETCON= F features except the RPC mechanism,

then you might as well use whatever RPC you want, such as= the

one defined for S= OAP/HTTP.


Thanks.=A0 That makes a = lot of sense.

= -andy
--=_zeke.ecotroph.net-1508-1170810601-0001-2-- --===============1233486927== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint --===============1233486927==-- Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEY86-0008T9-LN; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:45:34 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEY85-0008Sk-9E for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:45:33 -0500 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEY83-00026x-Qx for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:45:33 -0500 Received: from RSHOCKEYLTXP (neustargw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.233]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l16Lj1fw015667; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:45:07 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" , "'Creighton, Tom'" References: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602D7BFD0@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> <7D8EA83B-AB0A-4435-BCC6-7248946E40D5@cisco.com> Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:44:55 -0500 Message-ID: <00cf01c74a38$0b612b90$78201f0a@cis.neustar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AcdKNt/9RJlBv/2QSwycKCiM3zc88wAAKPoA In-Reply-To: <7D8EA83B-AB0A-4435-BCC6-7248946E40D5@cisco.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: richard@shockey.us X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Cc: peppermint@ietf.org, 'Jon Peterson' X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: richard@shockey.us List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:07 PM > To: Creighton, Tom > Cc: peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson > Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter > > > Just one note that I had told Andy but should have sent to the list. > > I've been thinking about the requirements and the solution to the > requirements somewhat separately. It seem very likely to me that RAI > folks have know the right stuff to write the requirements. It is less > obvious to me where a solution to the requirements should be done or > if there might already be most of a solution in some existing work. I certainly agree with the thrust that the requirements need to come out of RAI people. But as to where the work should be done is rather irrelevant to most of us. I certainly see a great deal of expertise coming out of APPS for instance. The most important thing is to get started since there are real "time to market" issues. > > > On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Creighton, Tom wrote: > > > All: > > > > I fully agree with Andy's comments and would like to add that > > asking the > > SPEERMINT working group to re-charter in order to accommodate this > > additional work would be a time consuming process and, in my > > opinion, an > > unneeded distraction for SPEERMINT. I like Andy's "get in, get done, > > and get out" approach to this proposed working group and believe that > > this should be fairly easy to accomplish. I cannot stress enough that > > there is an immediate need by service providers and registry operators > > for an open, standards-based, non-EPP interface for exchanging data. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tom > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 14:34 > >> To: Cullen Jennings > >> Cc: peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson > >> Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter > >> > >> > >> On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> > >>> I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received > >>> much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form > >>> a WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why > >>> you think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the > >>> requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so > >>> please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). > >> > >> Cullen, > >> > >> The difference between the two efforts is quite clear, I believe. > >> SPEERMINT deals with media and signaling flow between peering > >> entities. The issues in that group have been about codecs, SIP > >> headers, etc.. PEPPERMINT is about provisioning DIDs to a > >> centralized authority and the caching of that data. There is another > >> big difference. SPEERMINT is chartered to only do BCP work. > >> PEPPERMINT will almost certainly require protocol work. > >> > >> With regard to your question of "at least" doing the requirements > >> work in SPEERMINT, this assumes that once that is done we would have > >> to find another working group or go through the BoF process all over > >> again to find a home for the protocol work. That is a lot of heavy > >> and slow process and seems unnecessary. A much better approach, > >> which I've seen quite often in the IETF, is to allow the separate > >> working groups consult with each other. > >> > >> Thanks for taking the time to come up to speed on these issues and to > >> discuss your concerns with us. > >> > >> -andy > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PEPPERMINT mailing list > >> PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint > > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEXzH-0004I6-Ny; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:36:27 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEXWv-0005Yf-EE for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:09 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEXWt-0001xR-2N for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:09 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2007 13:07:06 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,291,1167638400"; d="scan'208"; a="37691420:sNHT81834606" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l16L76Ct022220; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:07:06 -0800 Received: from [192.168.4.177] (sjc-fluffy-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.236.82]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id l16L74nG006000; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:07:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602D7BFD0@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> References: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602D7BFD0@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7D8EA83B-AB0A-4435-BCC6-7248946E40D5@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Cullen Jennings Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:06:47 -0800 To: "Creighton, Tom" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3097; t=1170796026; x=1171660026; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[PEPPERMINT]=20Question=20about=20charter |Sender:=20; bh=KPOiHNAIaW5XfKm9HRXqFe4ghpe1ZGcNe0HHu0e+JLM=; b=ilLIDKcsvICLUHbxEKuC+o+zgMQKjFIuOX0EBLcJlYrSbflVAwzK8ng+2nk0z2CU+TYY9oMv 5bMnHaDIDR4AuFY88g50XicdewnKCteku5GLakw/q/T9EqSA+WcsjV9Q; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:36:26 -0500 Cc: peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org Just one note that I had told Andy but should have sent to the list. I've been thinking about the requirements and the solution to the requirements somewhat separately. It seem very likely to me that RAI folks have know the right stuff to write the requirements. It is less obvious to me where a solution to the requirements should be done or if there might already be most of a solution in some existing work. On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Creighton, Tom wrote: > All: > > I fully agree with Andy's comments and would like to add that > asking the > SPEERMINT working group to re-charter in order to accommodate this > additional work would be a time consuming process and, in my > opinion, an > unneeded distraction for SPEERMINT. I like Andy's "get in, get done, > and get out" approach to this proposed working group and believe that > this should be fairly easy to accomplish. I cannot stress enough that > there is an immediate need by service providers and registry operators > for an open, standards-based, non-EPP interface for exchanging data. > > Regards, > > Tom > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 14:34 >> To: Cullen Jennings >> Cc: peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson >> Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter >> >> >> On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> >>> I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received >>> much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form >>> a WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why >>> you think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the >>> requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so >>> please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). >> >> Cullen, >> >> The difference between the two efforts is quite clear, I believe. >> SPEERMINT deals with media and signaling flow between peering >> entities. The issues in that group have been about codecs, SIP >> headers, etc.. PEPPERMINT is about provisioning DIDs to a >> centralized authority and the caching of that data. There is another >> big difference. SPEERMINT is chartered to only do BCP work. >> PEPPERMINT will almost certainly require protocol work. >> >> With regard to your question of "at least" doing the requirements >> work in SPEERMINT, this assumes that once that is done we would have >> to find another working group or go through the BoF process all over >> again to find a home for the protocol work. That is a lot of heavy >> and slow process and seems unnecessary. A much better approach, >> which I've seen quite often in the IETF, is to allow the separate >> working groups consult with each other. >> >> Thanks for taking the time to come up to speed on these issues and to >> discuss your concerns with us. >> >> -andy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PEPPERMINT mailing list >> PEPPERMINT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWyI-0001zI-UV; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:31:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWyI-0001zD-DF for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:31:22 -0500 Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com ([208.17.35.58] helo=cable.comcast.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWyC-000300-AB for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:31:22 -0500 Received: from ([10.195.246.152]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.30159073; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:30:55 -0500 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by NJMDCEXCRLY01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:30:55 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:30:54 -0500 Message-ID: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602D7BFD0@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Thread-Index: AcdKJda8hXXt5F8GS/u09cz3SXUAnAAAEpJA From: "Creighton, Tom" To: "Andrew Newton" , "Cullen Jennings" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2007 20:30:55.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[B41187E0:01C74A2D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org All: I fully agree with Andy's comments and would like to add that asking the SPEERMINT working group to re-charter in order to accommodate this additional work would be a time consuming process and, in my opinion, an unneeded distraction for SPEERMINT. I like Andy's "get in, get done, and get out" approach to this proposed working group and believe that this should be fairly easy to accomplish. I cannot stress enough that there is an immediate need by service providers and registry operators for an open, standards-based, non-EPP interface for exchanging data. Regards, Tom =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us] > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 14:34 > To: Cullen Jennings > Cc: peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson > Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter >=20 >=20 > On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >=20 > > I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received > > much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form > > a WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why > > you think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the > > requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so > > please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). >=20 > Cullen, >=20 > The difference between the two efforts is quite clear, I believe. > SPEERMINT deals with media and signaling flow between peering > entities. The issues in that group have been about codecs, SIP > headers, etc.. PEPPERMINT is about provisioning DIDs to a > centralized authority and the caching of that data. There is another > big difference. SPEERMINT is chartered to only do BCP work. > PEPPERMINT will almost certainly require protocol work. >=20 > With regard to your question of "at least" doing the requirements > work in SPEERMINT, this assumes that once that is done we would have > to find another working group or go through the BoF process all over > again to find a home for the protocol work. That is a lot of heavy > and slow process and seems unnecessary. A much better approach, > which I've seen quite often in the IETF, is to allow the separate > working groups consult with each other. >=20 > Thanks for taking the time to come up to speed on these issues and to > discuss your concerns with us. >=20 > -andy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWYB-00066a-HL; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:04:23 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWYB-00066U-1J for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:04:23 -0500 Received: from zeke.toscano.org ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEWY5-0004WZ-Qf for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:04:23 -0500 Received: from [172.16.10.88] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:03:30 -0500 id 015880E5.45C8DF12.0000210D In-Reply-To: References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8F3C2107-A83E-47BE-BA4E-E756CDE3C6AB@hxr.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2CC2F744-7C20-4388-9DCE-DA3ED85A7E7B@hxr.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:04:09 -0500 To: "Romascanu, Dan ((Dan))" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: Cullen Jennings , Andy Bierman , peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) wrote: > I do not believe that you are missing anything at high level, but > there are two ways of filling in the gap that you have identified. > Defining a data model, or defining NETCONF verbs specific to > provisioning phone numbers ("identities"). There is an ongoing > discussion in NETCONF nowadays about what is the 'better' way ahead > to make NETCONF appropriate for applications like peppermint. I > agree that NETCONF as defined today may not be today the natural > fit, but they need to learn how to fill that gap in order to become > useful in applications like peppermint. I'm certainly willing to listen, but I have to be honest -- there is a lot I see in NETCONF that does not seem pleasing. For starters, the three different bindings: one to SOAP, one to BEEP, and the one to SSH. On top of that, the binding on top of SOAP seems redundant. Why not just use SOAP's own RPC mechanism if you are gonna use SOAP? But this identifies one of the main differences between SPEERMINT and PEPPERMINT. SPEERMINT is about SIP optimizations. PEPPERMINT is about defining the use of another protocol (i.e. EPP, SOAP/HTTP, NETCONF) for provisioning. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEW4n-0000vN-VY; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:34:01 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEW4n-0000vI-1W for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:34:01 -0500 Received: from zeke.toscano.org ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEW4k-0001U3-Qx for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:34:01 -0500 Received: from [172.16.10.88] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:33:17 -0500 id 01588075.45C8D7FD.00001894 In-Reply-To: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> References: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <79CE991C-2740-41C3-8106-1B05F80A80CC@hxr.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:33:55 -0500 To: Cullen Jennings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received > much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form > a WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why > you think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the > requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so > please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). Cullen, The difference between the two efforts is quite clear, I believe. SPEERMINT deals with media and signaling flow between peering entities. The issues in that group have been about codecs, SIP headers, etc.. PEPPERMINT is about provisioning DIDs to a centralized authority and the caching of that data. There is another big difference. SPEERMINT is chartered to only do BCP work. PEPPERMINT will almost certainly require protocol work. With regard to your question of "at least" doing the requirements work in SPEERMINT, this assumes that once that is done we would have to find another working group or go through the BoF process all over again to find a home for the protocol work. That is a lot of heavy and slow process and seems unnecessary. A much better approach, which I've seen quite often in the IETF, is to allow the separate working groups consult with each other. Thanks for taking the time to come up to speed on these issues and to discuss your concerns with us. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEViv-0007PK-Du; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:11:25 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEVit-0007PA-Nx for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:11:23 -0500 Received: from nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEVis-0003AH-9E for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:11:23 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l16JBGvh032141 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:11:17 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:11:15 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Thread-Index: AcdKISPAJT66ftbvQf+YE2+pWyzMzwAAK0hg References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8F3C2107-A83E-47BE-BA4E-E756CDE3C6AB@hxr.us> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Andrew Newton" X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb93e867a11a29ac1dc5018706b412ac Cc: Cullen Jennings , Andy Bierman , peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0854962698==" Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0854962698== content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C74A22.92C53AE9" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C74A22.92C53AE9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AndyN, =20 I am copying one of the NETCONF chairs (another Andy).=20 =20 I do not believe that you are missing anything at high level, but there are two ways of filling in the gap that you have identified. Defining a data model, or defining NETCONF verbs specific to provisioning phone numbers ("identities"). There is an ongoing discussion in NETCONF nowadays about what is the 'better' way ahead to make NETCONF appropriate for applications like peppermint. I agree that NETCONF as defined today may not be today the natural fit, but they need to learn how to fill that gap in order to become useful in applications like peppermint.=20 =20 Dan =20 =20 =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]=20 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:01 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; Cullen Jennings; peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter =09 =09 On Feb 5, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) wrote: Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we identified in the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be focused on solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the entities related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and notifications related to the respective problem space? And what about performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG?=20 =09 =09 I would say that it makes much more sense for a WG to extend its charter and include related provisioning issues (and other operational aspects) even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic architecture and protocol aspects have been defined. Of course, if broader generic tools or protocols could be considered to solve the provisioning problem they could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint there are some discussions in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at netconf as one of the possible solutions.=20 Dan, It took me sometime to figure out what you are talking about. I think we are talking about provisioning in two different contexts. This is not about provisioning local routes in an SBC or some other bit of network gear under the control of the one doing the provisioning. This is about provisioning phone numbers (I've generalized it to "identities", but in essence phone numbers) to a central authority. It is much more akin to the EPP work than NETCONF. I did surf over to the NETCONF working group and took a gander at the drafts. For us to use NETCONF in this, we would still need to define the data model. To me, NETCONF looks like an XML-based RPC mechanism, similar to XML-RPC or SOAP. What am I missing that makes it a natural fit here? -andy ------_=_NextPart_001_01C74A22.92C53AE9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
AndyN,
 
I am copying one of the NETCONF chairs = (another Andy).=20
 
I do not believe that you are missing = anything at high=20 level, but there are two ways of filling in the gap that you have = identified.=20 Defining a data model, or defining NETCONF verbs specific to = provisioning phone=20 numbers ("identities"). There is an ongoing discussion in NETCONF = nowadays about=20 what is the 'better' way ahead to make NETCONF appropriate for = applications like=20 peppermint. I agree that NETCONF as defined today may not be today the = natural=20 fit, but they need to learn how to fill that gap in order to become = useful in=20 applications like peppermint.
 
Dan
 
 
 
 

From: Andrew Newton = [mailto:andy@hxr.us]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:01 PM
To: = Romascanu,=20 Dan (Dan)
Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; Cullen Jennings;=20 peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson
Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] = Question=20 about charter


On Feb 5, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) = wrote:

Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we = identified=20 in

the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be = focused=20 on

solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning = the=20 entities

related to the solution of the problem. But what about = alarms=20 and

notifications related to the respective problem space? And = what=20 about

performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG? 


I would say that it makes much more sense for a WG to = extend its=20 charter

and include related provisioning issues (and other = operational=20 aspects)

even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic = architecture=20 and

protocol aspects have been defined. Of course, if broader = generic=20 tools

or protocols could be considered to solve the provisioning = problem=20 they

could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint = there are=20 some

discussions in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at = netconf as=20 one

of the possible solutions. 

=
Dan,

It took me sometime to figure out what you are talking = about.  I=20 think we are talking about provisioning in two different = contexts.  This=20 is not about provisioning local routes in an SBC or some other bit of = network=20 gear under the control of the one doing the provisioning.  This = is about=20 provisioning phone numbers (I've generalized it to "identities", but = in=20 essence phone numbers) to a central authority.  It is much more = akin to=20 the EPP work than NETCONF.

I did surf over to the NETCONF working group and took a gander at = the=20 drafts.  For us to use NETCONF in this, we would still need to = define the=20 data model.  To me, NETCONF looks like an XML-based RPC = mechanism,=20 similar to XML-RPC or SOAP.  What am I missing that makes it a = natural=20 fit here?

-andy
------_=_NextPart_001_01C74A22.92C53AE9-- --===============0854962698== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint --===============0854962698==-- Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEVYp-0001xB-DU; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:00:59 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEVYo-0001x3-7r for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:00:58 -0500 Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEVYl-00080K-T9 for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:00:58 -0500 Received: from [172.16.10.88] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:00:10 -0500 id 01588015.45C8D03A.00001001 In-Reply-To: References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <8F3C2107-A83E-47BE-BA4E-E756CDE3C6AB@hxr.us> From: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:00:49 -0500 To: "Romascanu, Dan ((Dan))" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 Cc: Cullen Jennings , peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0222428561==" Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --===============0222428561== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_zeke.ecotroph.net-4101-1170788414-0001-2" This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --=_zeke.ecotroph.net-4101-1170788414-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Feb 5, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) wrote: > Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we > identified in > the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be focused on > solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the > entities > related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and > notifications related to the respective problem space? And what about > performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG? > > I would say that it makes much more sense for a WG to extend its > charter > and include related provisioning issues (and other operational > aspects) > even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic architecture > and > protocol aspects have been defined. Of course, if broader generic > tools > or protocols could be considered to solve the provisioning problem > they > could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint there are some > discussions in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at netconf > as one > of the possible solutions. Dan, It took me sometime to figure out what you are talking about. I think we are talking about provisioning in two different contexts. This is not about provisioning local routes in an SBC or some other bit of network gear under the control of the one doing the provisioning. This is about provisioning phone numbers (I've generalized it to "identities", but in essence phone numbers) to a central authority. It is much more akin to the EPP work than NETCONF. I did surf over to the NETCONF working group and took a gander at the drafts. For us to use NETCONF in this, we would still need to define the data model. To me, NETCONF looks like an XML-based RPC mechanism, similar to XML-RPC or SOAP. What am I missing that makes it a natural fit here? -andy --=_zeke.ecotroph.net-4101-1170788414-0001-2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mime-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to quoted-printable by courier 0.53.3
On Feb 5, 2007, at 1:03= PM, Romascanu, Dan ((Dan)) wrote:

Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we identified in<= /FONT>

the IETF we would sta= rt two working groups. One would be focused on

solving the problem itself, and the second on pr= ovisioning the entities

related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and

notifications related to = the respective problem space? And what about

performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG?<= SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0

I would say that it m= akes much more sense for a WG to extend its charter

and include related provisioning issues (an= d other operational aspects)

even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic architectu= re and

protocol aspec= ts have been defined. Of course, if broader generic tools

or protocols could be considered to = solve the provisioning problem they

could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint th= ere are some

discussi= ons in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at netconf as one

of the possible solutions.=A0


Dan,

It took me sometime to figure out what you are talking about.=A0 I thi= nk we are talking about provisioning in two different contexts.=A0 This i= s not about provisioning local routes in an SBC or some other bit of netw= ork gear under the control of the one doing the provisioning.=A0 This is = about provisioning phone numbers (I've generalized it to "identities", bu= t in essence phone numbers) to a central authority.=A0 It is much more ak= in to the EPP work than NETCONF.

I did surf over to the NETCONF working group and took = a gander at the drafts.=A0 For us to use NETCONF in this, we would still = need to define the data model.=A0 To me, NETCONF looks like an XML-based = RPC mechanism, similar to XML-RPC or SOAP.=A0 What am I missing that make= s it a natural fit here?

=
-andy
--=_zeke.ecotroph.net-4101-1170788414-0001-2-- --===============0222428561== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint --===============0222428561==-- Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HETHd-0007DF-2l; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:35:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HETHa-0007D7-8q for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:35:02 -0500 Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HETHW-0004dB-Kd for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:35:02 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.139]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l16GZ4bZ030524 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:35:04 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:34:57 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:34:56 -0500 Message-ID: <768BEB5E70C897468D015E23EDCC304E01FF16E2@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6 Thread-Index: AcdJVp5a8hP/EZGXREaA6c1WYmSzcQAtezCA From: "Chauhan, Sanjeev" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2007 16:34:57.0130 (UTC) FILETIME=[BCD224A0:01C74A0C] X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6 X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org >=20 > Today's Topics: >=20 > 1. RE: Question about charter (Hollenbeck, Scott) >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:51:57 -0500 > From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" > Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter > To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "Cullen=20 > Jennings" > , > Cc: Jon Peterson > Message-ID: > =09 > <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE230@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.a d.vrsn.com> > =09 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:04 PM > > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Cullen Jennings; peppermint@ietf.org > > Cc: Jon Peterson > > Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter >=20 > > Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we=20 > identified=20 > > in the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be=20 > focused on=20 > > solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the=20 > > entities related to the solution of the problem. But what=20 > about alarms=20 > > and notifications related to the respective problem space? And what=20 > > about performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG? >=20 > The appropriate splits don't necessarily fit a formula. =20 > That's why we have discussions like this. >=20 > I don't see a problem with creating new working groups if=20 > they are properly focused on a specific, manageable problem=20 > and they have a well defined timetable for either solving the=20 > problem or going home. I will agree, though, that we haven't=20 > done that very well. On the other hand, we have experience=20 > with working groups that have lived far beyond their expected=20 > lifespan as they've refocused, rechartered, and sometimes=20 > floundered because no one wanted to put them out of their misery. > That's not necessarily a good thing. >=20 > -Scott- >=20 >=20 imho - provisioning and session routing (or resolution in dns terms) are major interfaces to the system and need to defined. the two interfaces though related have different requirements and are addressing different needs and audiences. imo separate WG will be allow individual teams to focus on the task at hand.=20 on a related note - while i agree database synchronization is an interesting challenge, i don't think this problem is related to the provisioning issue - defining the provisioning interface imho is a higher priority for this group.=20 -sanjeev _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8vo-00014H-5s; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:51:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8vm-000147-Tu for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:51:10 -0500 Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8vj-0006GM-Cj for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:51:10 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.139]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l15IpBQ1024869; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:51:11 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:51:03 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:51:57 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE230@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Thread-Index: AcdHxSKeqmMVr36eQymZlPonKwVvbwBhu1KAAAC/PeAAATUFgA== From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "Cullen Jennings" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2007 18:51:03.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[95FBC9F0:01C74956] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:04 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Cullen Jennings; peppermint@ietf.org > Cc: Jon Peterson > Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter > Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we=20 > identified in > the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be focused on > solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning=20 > the entities > related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and > notifications related to the respective problem space? And what about > performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG?=20 The appropriate splits don't necessarily fit a formula. That's why we have discussions like this. I don't see a problem with creating new working groups if they are properly focused on a specific, manageable problem and they have a well defined timetable for either solving the problem or going home. I will agree, though, that we haven't done that very well. On the other hand, we have experience with working groups that have lived far beyond their expected lifespan as they've refocused, rechartered, and sometimes floundered because no one wanted to put them out of their misery. That's not necessarily a good thing. -Scott- _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8Y8-0004qH-Ks; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:26:44 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8Y6-0004qB-UE for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:26:42 -0500 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8Y5-0008Pv-GL for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:26:42 -0500 Received: from RSHOCKEYLTXP (neustargw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.233]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l15IQNcw028829; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:26:30 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , "'Hollenbeck, Scott'" , "'Cullen Jennings'" , References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:26:03 -0500 Message-ID: <021701c74953$1ab4d3c0$78201f0a@cis.neustar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AcdHxSKeqmMVr36eQymZlPonKwVvbwBhu1KAAAC/PeAAAMv+IA== In-Reply-To: X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: richard@shockey.us X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Cc: 'Jon Peterson' X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: richard@shockey.us List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org > > > > My observation: the problem that PEPPERMINT is trying to > > address is a different problem than the one SPEERMINT is > > chartered to work on. > > PEPPERMINT is focused on a provisioning problem, not > > "real-time session routing architectures and their associated > > use cases" (quote taken from the SPEERMINT charter). If the > > provreg working group were still around I could see this > > topic being more closely aligned with the expertise found in > > that working group. > > > > Getting to the point: I would strongly support the idea of > > scheduling this BOF if at all possible, even if it means > > thinking about doing it in the applications area. I don't > > know what Lisa and Ted think about that idea. It might be > > worth talking to them if it hasn't come up already. > > > > -Scott- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PEPPERMINT mailing list > > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint > > I would respectfully disagree. Obviously I support what Scott is saying here. From my observations the issues on speermint and peppermint are orthogonal to each other as Scott observes. The issues of provisioning data necessary to support realtime session routing can be delt with separately and should be. There are very serious "go to market issues" that service providers and registry operators need to address ASAP. And I might add that could include edge systems such as PBX's where an enterprise wants the support of a service provider in global dial plan management and routing where the PBX is trunking its session traffic directly into a service providers network over IP trunks vs TCM. I would encourage the rest of the list to chime in ASAP so the AD can have fuller picture of all of the issues involved here. > > Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we identified in > the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be focused on > solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the entities > related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and > notifications related to the respective problem space? And what about > performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG? > > I would say that it makes much more sense for a WG to extend its charter > and include related provisioning issues (and other operational aspects) > even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic architecture and > protocol aspects have been defined. Of course, if broader generic tools > or protocols could be considered to solve the provisioning problem they > could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint there are some > discussions in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at netconf as one > of the possible solutions. > > Dan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8CE-00019N-KJ; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:04:06 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8CA-00015U-UG for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE8C9-00047B-Ga for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l15I3xs8008002 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:04:00 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:03:59 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Thread-Index: AcdHxSKeqmMVr36eQymZlPonKwVvbwBhu1KAAAC/PeA= References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "Cullen Jennings" , X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 Cc: Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:55 PM > To: Cullen Jennings; peppermint@ietf.org > Cc: Jon Peterson > Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:36 PM > > To: peppermint@ietf.org > > Cc: Jon Peterson > > Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter > >=20 > >=20 > > I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received=20 > > much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need=20 > to form a=20 > > WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why you=20 > > think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the=20 > > requirements phase of this work. We are really short on=20 > time so please=20 > > let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). > >=20 > > Keep in mind that the RAI agenda is very full and to run a BOF, it=20 > > will steel time from another WG. >=20 > Cullen, >=20 > My observation: the problem that PEPPERMINT is trying to=20 > address is a different problem than the one SPEERMINT is=20 > chartered to work on. > PEPPERMINT is focused on a provisioning problem, not=20 > "real-time session routing architectures and their associated=20 > use cases" (quote taken from the SPEERMINT charter). If the=20 > provreg working group were still around I could see this=20 > topic being more closely aligned with the expertise found in=20 > that working group. >=20 > Getting to the point: I would strongly support the idea of=20 > scheduling this BOF if at all possible, even if it means=20 > thinking about doing it in the applications area. I don't=20 > know what Lisa and Ted think about that idea. It might be=20 > worth talking to them if it hasn't come up already. >=20 > -Scott- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint I would respectfully disagree.=20 Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we identified in the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be focused on solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the entities related to the solution of the problem. But what about alarms and notifications related to the respective problem space? And what about performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG?=20 I would say that it makes much more sense for a WG to extend its charter and include related provisioning issues (and other operational aspects) even if this happens at a later phase, after the basic architecture and protocol aspects have been defined. Of course, if broader generic tools or protocols could be considered to solve the provisioning problem they could be considered. Actually in the case of peppermint there are some discussions in the netconf WG about suggesting to look at netconf as one of the possible solutions.=20 Dan >=20 _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE835-0003gs-3u; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:54:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE834-0003gj-0g for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:54:38 -0500 Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE832-0002yr-Px for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:54:37 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l15HshJp024953; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:54:43 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:54:35 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:55:29 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701ADE210@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter Thread-Index: AcdHxSKeqmMVr36eQymZlPonKwVvbwBhu1KA From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Cullen Jennings" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2007 17:54:35.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2CCC730:01C7494E] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: Jon Peterson X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:36 PM > To: peppermint@ietf.org > Cc: Jon Peterson > Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter >=20 >=20 > I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received =20 > much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need=20 > to form a =20 > WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why you =20 > think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the =20 > requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so =20 > please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). >=20 > Keep in mind that the RAI agenda is very full and to run a BOF, it =20 > will steel time from another WG. Cullen, My observation: the problem that PEPPERMINT is trying to address is a different problem than the one SPEERMINT is chartered to work on. PEPPERMINT is focused on a provisioning problem, not "real-time session routing architectures and their associated use cases" (quote taken from the SPEERMINT charter). If the provreg working group were still around I could see this topic being more closely aligned with the expertise found in that working group. Getting to the point: I would strongly support the idea of scheduling this BOF if at all possible, even if it means thinking about doing it in the applications area. I don't know what Lisa and Ted think about that idea. It might be worth talking to them if it hasn't come up already. -Scott- _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDQ2b-0002CL-VY; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:55:13 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDPkQ-0002Yn-QA for peppermint@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:36:26 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDPkP-0007gP-HJ for peppermint@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:36:26 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2007 10:36:24 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,277,1167638400"; d="scan'208"; a="385429367:sNHT42529072" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l13IaOvm032107; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:36:24 -0800 Received: from [192.168.4.177] (sjc-fluffy-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.236.82]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id l13IaJhp007403; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:36:24 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5F859067-3335-4571-9519-D35A232BF6B5@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Cullen Jennings Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:36:06 -0800 To: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=530; t=1170527784; x=1171391784; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Question=20about=20charter |Sender:=20; bh=cfKJptMyv0e/eRiokh+Llaqi8b9G139qWe5+pqp5Bk8=; b=wu1PMmG3MZnNSTdWsg3cXKAygSkEzZSKJDY5cgWQmqexvRpT5azGLYOFw/QVNceror6ctPnC /PMvX+OkHUSbckWiKBXmY7xwSugtd0mNYgQTrl4jWKaz6mtfXYHG/hIQ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim5002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:55:13 -0500 Cc: Jon Peterson Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org I have received some input about Peppermint but I have not received much about the overlap with speermint. If you think we need to form a WG to do this work, please let me know why and particularly why you think that speermint is not the right place to do at least the requirements phase of this work. We are really short on time so please let me know in the next 5 days (by end of 7th). Keep in mind that the RAI agenda is very full and to run a BOF, it will steel time from another WG. Thanks, Cullen _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDMRI-0007rs-6y; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:04:28 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDASX-0004l3-A4 for peppermint@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:16:57 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDASV-0005ow-1l for peppermint@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:16:57 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2007 18:16:54 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,274,1167638400"; d="scan'208"; a="385321846:sNHT41602504" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l132GoYJ026617; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:16:50 -0800 Received: from [192.168.4.177] (sjc-fluffy-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.236.82]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id l132Gqhp010821; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:16:52 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Cullen Jennings Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:16:39 -0800 To: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=307; t=1170469010; x=1171333010; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Peppermint |Sender:=20; bh=LxPGFVmM6B472B9VmPvEWW3YQUWUAeBxQA2K20lxuSY=; b=QwXSBnoDW8xGH3+BLUV+srskvmyK+A6LLXHbz23itJsWFph58UCakdkI8gRkiT+IG+xgMFIv kUdAIu1GIu55enMnddF2kOhc8CMf6glN97cZDXSe7hk4HFnqii78SA4e; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim7002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:04:27 -0500 Cc: Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Peppermint X-BeenThere: peppermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia INTerconnection List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org I spent a long time with Andrew on the phone today and provide him with more details. Jon still needs to make a decision about this BOF and conversations are still on going. I expect to have an answer in 5-10 days. If I had to guess, I would say things are sliding towards a decline. Cullen _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint