Subject: [drinks] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:15:02 -0800 (PST)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
	Author(s)       : S. Channabasappa
	Filename        : draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01.txt
	Pages           : 23
	Date            : 2010-03-08

This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
interfaces to provision session establishment data into SIP Service
Provider components that aid with session routing.  Specifically, the
current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of one
such element, termed the registry.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:16:40 -0400

Since I won't make it to Anaheim a couple of comments/questions re the
use case draft:

1. re UC ROUTING #2. Am I right that there's nothing special about the
geographic example here? DGs could just as well be assigned on, say, the
basis of assigning special ingress routes to TNs with special
functionality, e.g. video capability. In the example DGs just happen to
be a proxy for regions.

2. re UC ROUTING #5. I presume the base case of direct non-selective
inter-network peering is just a degenerate form of this case.

3. re UC ROUTING #6. Again, just applying the general recipient group
capability to the egress route problem, right?  Here I would expect the
data only goes to the originating SSP's LDR. This is an alternative to
the approach in draft-malas-dispatch-sip-egress-route which draft melds
the egress and ingress info into one record.

4. re UC ROUTING #7: Does this include returning a NAPTR with the
terminating SBE? DNS resolution of the hostname may still be required.

5. re FREQ #10: I assume this case applies only where the Registry being
provisioned is one that handles traffic on a query basis as opposed to
bulk download to an originating SSP LDR. (To me it wouldn't make sense
to expect an originating SSP to apply the source selection logic defined
by a terminating SSP)

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [drinks] I-D
Action:draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Data for Reachability of
Inter/tra-NetworK SIP Working Group of the IETF.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requireme
nts-01.txt