Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTbT2-0005Ba-0v; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:21:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTbSz-0005BQ-U6 for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:21:21 -0400 Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTbSx-0000QN-Ne for peppermint@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:21:21 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.109] ([::ffff:72.196.237.170]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:17:23 -0400 id 01588371.45FFB4B3.00005A77 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson From: Andrew Newton Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:21:16 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Cc: Subject: [PEPPERMINT] not a done deal, there's still a lot of work to do... 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 The subject is a quote in the jabber logs for SPEERMINT from IETF 68 from Jon Peterson with regards to a PEPPERMINT BoF in Chicago (at the next IETF meeting). It would be helpful if Jon could tell us what exactly he needs to make up his mind about this, and more specifically which of the 3 drafts on this subject need updating so that he may understand the problem properly. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HReZq-0005pD-TZ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HReZp-0005lR-KZ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:21 -0400 Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HReZo-00008f-DW; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:21 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.109] ([::ffff:72.196.237.170]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:13:06 -0400 id 0158817B.45F89DA3.0000666F In-Reply-To: References: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> <9D607B8C-A484-45CF-872C-7EC658EF261E@hxr.us> 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: Andrew Newton Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:05 -0400 To: Cullen Jennings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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 Mar 14, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > The protocol proposal produced are not convincing that there is a > bunch of folks that have a common shared version of what the > problem is. Without this you have no chance of consensus at a > widely useful protocol. The number of people that replied > positively to my question about should we have a BOF could be > counted on one hand. You need to build better consensus of what is > the work that needs to happen. I'm glad to help you do this. First, what protocol proposal are you talking about? I think those of us who want something NOW are being very patient by not putting forth 5 different protocol proposals, and instead documenting requirements, use cases, and problem statements so that there is a common understanding. You seemed to indicate this is exactly what we should do by getting requirements passed in one working group before trying for a BoF. However, if you feel we should just start taking a stab at protocols, I'm all for it. On an issue as simple as this, requirements only serve the IESG.... nobody else reads them. Second, mailing list traffic and show of hands in a meeting are not the same ratios in all communities, even within RAI. I realize that some RAI working groups seem to have volumes of list traffic compared to hands in the meeting (I know, I co-chair one), but if you look at SPEERMINT you'll see that it is not the same. At the last SPEERMINT meeting, the item that got the most agreement at the open discussion period was this issue. Or do you expect that all RAI efforts must have as big an audience and as far reaching an impact as the SIP WG? What's the magic number we need, because I have not found it in any RFC where it should be documented? I realize this is not your half of RAI and appreciate your willingness to dive through new drafts and issues, especially given your load for the working groups where you are AD. We'd have a better IETF if only more ADs worked as hard as you. But I'm baffled by your recommended course of action and cannot understand why you do not feel it is a couple of process hurdles too many. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRcNN-0007iX-30; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:55:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRcNL-0007gI-4S; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRcNI-0005xE-QC; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2007 15:55:12 -0700 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 l2EMtC5o011274; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:55:12 -0700 Received: from [128.107.100.34] (dhcp-128-107-100-34.cisco.com [128.107.100.34]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2EMt7wn027836; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:55:07 GMT In-Reply-To: <9D607B8C-A484-45CF-872C-7EC658EF261E@hxr.us> References: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> <9D607B8C-A484-45CF-872C-7EC658EF261E@hxr.us> 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:55:01 -0700 To: Andrew Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2061; t=1173912912; x=1174776912; 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[Enum]=20draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 |Sender:=20; bh=Vta4kxOu4OBz6d1E21ZHPy6Buz8lidEOoYEO69NtKKc=; b=LwDaEDr7lDnnyHuCqkcly5K8UzxP2fGpXyqfEqsaYMzo5DyqPVQfLDHQWaOyQLCLBw1iOdFE JqGkjJa8b7eBnh4OmK13oV3CZtBbxg7BsCHVURNjEk7l2RK8uVbn55CJ; 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: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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 The protocol proposal produced are not convincing that there is a bunch of folks that have a common shared version of what the problem is. Without this you have no chance of consensus at a widely useful protocol. The number of people that replied positively to my question about should we have a BOF could be counted on one hand. You need to build better consensus of what is the work that needs to happen. I'm glad to help you do this. On Mar 14, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Andrew Newton wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is > > in-scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at > > least to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be > > necessary to form a new working group. > > Considering that SPEERMINT mentions nowhere in its charter > provisioning issues and that ENUM wg has atleast taken on EPP work > before, having this work done in ENUM is just as reasonable an > idea.... which is to say that either make only as much sense because > they reuse the same acronyms. > > > However, if you feel that this discussion can't be had in the main > > SPEERMINT WG meeting and the chairs agree, I think the best way > > forward > > would be for the SPEERMINT chairs to request an Ad-hoc meeting. > > Ultimately this is Jon's decision but if the chairs were in > > favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I > > would be supportive. > > The idea that work needs to get requirements agreed upon in one > working group only so it can then go off to get a BoF to spin up > another working group to actually do the real work is daft. Pretty > please, can we also be required to fill out some forms in triplicate > to be approved by the Chair of the Committee for Nevermind once it > has been notarized by the Under Secretary of Busywork? Given this, > it is simply stunning that the IETF feels smugly superior to > organizations like the ITU. > > -andy > _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRYiV-0001ku-RI; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:55 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRYiT-0001kL-CV; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:53 -0400 Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRYiN-0004J5-25; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:53 -0400 Received: from [172.16.9.198] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:57:26 -0400 id 01588444.45F84596.000067F5 In-Reply-To: References: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9D607B8C-A484-45CF-872C-7EC658EF261E@hxr.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andrew Newton Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:23 -0400 To: Cullen Jennings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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 Mar 12, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is > in-scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at > least to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be > necessary to form a new working group. Considering that SPEERMINT mentions nowhere in its charter provisioning issues and that ENUM wg has atleast taken on EPP work before, having this work done in ENUM is just as reasonable an idea.... which is to say that either make only as much sense because they reuse the same acronyms. > However, if you feel that this discussion can't be had in the main > SPEERMINT WG meeting and the chairs agree, I think the best way > forward > would be for the SPEERMINT chairs to request an Ad-hoc meeting. > Ultimately this is Jon's decision but if the chairs were in > favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I > would be supportive. The idea that work needs to get requirements agreed upon in one working group only so it can then go off to get a BoF to spin up another working group to actually do the real work is daft. Pretty please, can we also be required to fill out some forms in triplicate to be approved by the Chair of the Committee for Nevermind once it has been notarized by the Under Secretary of Busywork? Given this, it is simply stunning that the IETF feels smugly superior to organizations like the ITU. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQsC7-0003Jd-97; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:36:39 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQsC5-0003Iy-TP; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:36:37 -0400 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQsC4-0007QO-I1; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:36:37 -0400 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 l2CLa9Jc012787; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:36:16 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" References: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:36:03 -0400 Message-ID: <013401c764ee$7042d290$84201f0a@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: Acdk7LG3ajCzSW/aQWCKmRtyjjDH8gAADLig 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: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: enum@ietf.org, 'Jon Peterson' , peppermint@ietf.org, 'David Meyer' , "'Livingood, Jason'" Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:23 PM > To: richard@shockey.us > Cc: enum@ietf.org; peppermint@ietf.org; Jon Peterson; Andrew Newton > Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 > > > On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > > Well ..I guess that is why we are not having a formal PEPPERMINT > > BOF right? > > > > Cullen there is a community that wants to flush out the issues you > > correctly > > point out here before Chicago. > > > > I want a meeting room in Prague to do this. If I ask the > > Secretariat for a > > non official BOF will you approve it? > > Hi, > > I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is in- > scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at least > to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be > necessary to form a new working group. > > However, if you feel that this discussion can't be had in the main > SPEERMINT WG meeting and the chairs agree, I think the best way forward > would be for the SPEERMINT chairs to request an Ad-hoc meeting. > Ultimately this is Jon's decision but if the chairs were in > favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I > would be supportive. Well the thought was and I think the SPEERMINT WG chairs would agree, that they have a very very full plate of issues they need to deal with and PEPPERMINT development would be better off with an Ad-Hoc. In that case I'll let Jason and Dave add their views. I'm pretty sure they agree with the Ad-Hoc solution but I'm perfectly amenable to whatever they feel is best. > _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQrzO-0005te-78; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:23:30 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQrzM-0005rU-9S; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:23:28 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQrzE-0004Fq-M0; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:23:28 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2007 14:23:20 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,275,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="47598305:sNHT44528166" 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 l2CLNKK7019520; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:23:20 -0700 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 l2CLNIa4029456; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:23:18 GMT In-Reply-To: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> References: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@cis.neustar.com> 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:22:55 -0700 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1024; t=1173734600; x=1174598600; 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:=20Re=3A=20[Enum]=20draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 |Sender:=20; bh=rT1q5m8LY/tcCCMFQoT3WpDhJqUpqZbMI669gW7t16I=; b=Fxg7PlQKsraxb3mR8KCMDanCMha1eqdTezy8wOZor5wZiFCZ0iNeXHhq9goWWUcVJ582VICm 4wDSy6VDvKJDc8c1T3oEUPG+LKLp5cGSJ6fKSNf3CxPPLLXi7V8HJfGT; 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: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org, Jon Peterson Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Re: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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 Mar 10, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > > Well ..I guess that is why we are not having a formal PEPPERMINT > BOF right? > > Cullen there is a community that wants to flush out the issues you > correctly > point out here before Chicago. > > I want a meeting room in Prague to do this. If I ask the > Secretariat for a > non official BOF will you approve it? Hi, I feel that this work area--or at least the requirements phase--is in- scope for SPEERMINT and we'd like to see it pursued there, at least to the point where there's a consensus that it's likely to be necessary to form a new working group. However, if you feel that this discussion can't be had in the main SPEERMINT WG meeting and the chairs agree, I think the best way forward would be for the SPEERMINT chairs to request an Ad-hoc meeting. Ultimately this is Jon's decision but if the chairs were in favor and there was a slot where both Jon and I could make it, I would be supportive. Cullen _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoQm-0004m9-Mr; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:35:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoQl-0004jf-Dh for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:35:31 -0400 Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoQk-0007Nc-6S for peppermint@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:35:31 -0400 Received: from [172.16.9.198] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:27:51 -0400 id 01588188.45F58D97.00007E53 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: peppermint@ietf.org From: Andrew Newton Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:30:27 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: [PEPPERMINT] I'm there in spirit 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, As it turns out, I will not be attending the IETF meeting in Prague. This stems from a broken arm I acquired while sledding and has nothing to do with a protest (in case you are trying to read between the lines). I believe Richard is attempting to find a room for an "unofficial" meeting, and he may also be presenting at the APPS open area meeting. If you are attending the Prague meeting, I encourage you to attend the unofficial meeting. -andy _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoFP-00009m-MQ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:23:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoFO-00008p-L6; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:23:46 -0400 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQoFL-0005Qj-98; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:23:46 -0400 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 l2CHNHZF028382; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:23:24 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP'" , "'Andrew Newton'" References: <34DA635B184A644DA4588E260EC0A25A0EEACD56@ACCLUST02EVS1.ugd.att.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:23:18 -0400 Message-ID: <030601c764cb$212d3ce0$84201f0a@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: AcdkxJLI9LRZKsoBSJ6xLyVApdCzIgAAIwiQAAFyHZA= In-Reply-To: <34DA635B184A644DA4588E260EC0A25A0EEACD56@ACCLUST02EVS1.ugd.att.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: richard@shockey.us X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: speermint@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: [Speermint] Commentsondraft-newton-peppermint-problem-statement-00anddraft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00 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 Which I hope I can take as your support for forming a PEPPERMINT BOF in Chicago? :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP [mailto:ppfautz@att.com] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:48 PM > To: Andrew Newton > Cc: speermint@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Commentsondraft-newton-peppermint-problem- > statement-00anddraft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00 > > Andy: > Really just looking for a fuller definition of context and intended use. > I have no desire to prohibit anything. > I would like to see a discussion of merits and demerits of doing policy > in the Registry, for example, versus through subsequent resolution of > what is obtained from the Registry as this is an important technical > issue that most of us will have to make a decision about. > > Penn > > Penn Pfautz > AT&T Global Access Management > +1-732-420-4962 > > _______________________________________________ > Speermint mailing list > Speermint@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQNJY-0006Nh-AX; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:38:16 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQNJW-0006NW-8G; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:38:14 -0400 Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQNJU-0007tK-OO; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:38:14 -0400 Received: from [65.74.225.212] ([::ffff:65.74.225.212]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:35:35 -0400 id 01588682.45F3F797.00007F28 In-Reply-To: <0CF0F006-A469-4027-A368-028E57F02D6B@hxr.us> References: <0CF0F006-A469-4027-A368-028E57F02D6B@hxr.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: From: Andrew Newton Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] Fwd: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:37:59 -0400 To: Cullen Jennings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd3fc8e909678b38737fc606dec187f0 Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org 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="===============0772114731==" 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. --===============0772114731== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_zeke.ecotroph.net-32554-1173616546-0001-2" 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-32554-1173616546-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cullen, I think the info you want is actually in some other drafts: Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia Interconnection (PEPPERMINT) Problem Statement http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-peppermint-problem- statement-00.txt and E.164 Number Provisioning - Data Set Requirements http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schwartz-peppermint-e164- provisioning-data-set-00.txt As for EPP being bad, that is a matter of taste. I do think there is a strong preference toward SOAP by many. While I'm not wild about it, a SOAP based standard is far better than what we have today. -andy On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Newton wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Cullen Jennings >> Date: March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST >> To: enum@ietf.org >> Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 >> >> >> Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I >> got no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I >> certainly have no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to >> support it. >> >> I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning >> peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). >> However, this draft does not help me understand what is is the >> semantic level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and >> what constraints the trust and administrative boundaries place on >> the protocol. >> >> I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that >> information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high >> level models and requirements then we can figure out design that >> meets the needs. >> >> Cullen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> enum mailing list >> enum@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > _______________________________________________ > PEPPERMINT mailing list > PEPPERMINT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint --=_zeke.ecotroph.net-32554-1173616546-0001-2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mime-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to quoted-printable by courier 0.54.2
Cullen,

I think the info you want is actually = in some other drafts:

Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia=A0In= terconnection (PEPPERMINT) Problem Statement

and=A0

E.164 Number Provisioning - Data Set Requirements


As for EPP being bad, that is a matter of taste.=A0 I do thin= k there is a strong preference toward SOAP by many.=A0 While I'm not wild = about it, a SOAP based standard is far better than what we have today.

-andy

<= DIV>
On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

<= BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">
From: Cullen Jennings <flu= ffy@cisco.com>
Date: March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST
Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-= reg-if-00

<= DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; marg= in-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; ">
Ok, so i rea= d this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got no idea of what = the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have no idea how to desig= n a reasonable protocol to support it.

I understand that there are some require= ments for provisioning peering services (whatever a peering service provi= der is). However, this draft does not help me understand what is is the s= emantic level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what con= straints the trust and administrative boundaries place on the protocol.

I think t= his can be evolved into a draft that covers all that information well but = my suggestion would be to focus on the high level models and requirements = then we can figure out design that meets the needs.

Cullen <with my individua= l hat on>

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list

_________________________= ______________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
--=_zeke.ecotroph.net-32554-1173616546-0001-2-- --===============0772114731== 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 --===============0772114731==-- Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQN7s-0007mz-Dd; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:26:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQN7q-0007mj-0R for peppermint@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:26:10 -0400 Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQN7m-0004fG-I3 for peppermint@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:26:09 -0400 Received: from [65.74.225.212] ([::ffff:65.74.225.212]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:23:29 -0400 id 01588682.45F3F4C1.00007DEA Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) To: peppermint@ietf.org Message-Id: <0CF0F006-A469-4027-A368-028E57F02D6B@hxr.us> References: From: Andrew Newton Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:25:54 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Fwd: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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="===============0012837668==" Errors-To: peppermint-bounces@ietf.org --===============0012837668== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--112257354 --Apple-Mail-1--112257354 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Begin forwarded message: > From: Cullen Jennings > Date: March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 > > > Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I > got no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly > have no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it. > > I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning > peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). However, > this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic > level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what > constraints the trust and administrative boundaries place on the > protocol. > > I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that > information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high > level models and requirements then we can figure out design that > meets the needs. > > Cullen > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum --Apple-Mail-1--112257354 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII

Begin = forwarded message:

From: = Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: = March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST
Subject: = [Enum] = draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00


Ok, so i read = this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got no idea of what = the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have no idea how to = design a reasonable protocol to support it.

I understand = that there are some requirements for provisioning peering services = (whatever a peering service provider is). However, this draft does not = help me understand what is is the semantic level information that needs = to be provisioned, why, and what constraints the trust and = administrative boundaries place on the protocol.

I think = this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that information well = but my suggestion would be to focus on the high level models and = requirements then we can figure out design that meets the = needs.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

enum mailing list

= --Apple-Mail-1--112257354-- --===============0012837668== 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 --===============0012837668==-- Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQDvj-00018k-SK; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:37:03 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQDvh-00011E-Vt; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:37:01 -0500 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQDvg-0000hN-Ja; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:37:01 -0500 Received: from RSHOCKEYLTXP (h-68-165-240-34.mclnva23.covad.net [68.165.240.34]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2B2aXr9006411; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:36:40 -0800 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" References: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:36:28 -0500 Message-ID: <007f01c76386$138ec680$22f0a544@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 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcdjbxsR9MGELiRBRFOZOS/BS+xB6QAFmk4g 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: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Cc: enum@ietf.org, peppermint@ietf.org Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 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 Well ..I guess that is why we are not having a formal PEPPERMINT BOF right? Cullen there is a community that wants to flush out the issues you correctly point out here before Chicago. I want a meeting room in Prague to do this. If I ask the Secretariat for a non official BOF will you approve it? > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:52 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00 > > > Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got > no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have > no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it. > > I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning > peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). However, > this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic level > information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what constraints > the trust and administrative boundaries place on the protocol. > > I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that > information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high > level models and requirements then we can figure out design that > meets the needs. > > Cullen > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ PEPPERMINT mailing list PEPPERMINT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint