From extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 1 05:41:57 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14018 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g11Ag0M06751 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:42:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:42:00 -0500 Message-Id: <200202011042.g11Ag0M06751@share.research.bell-labs.com> Subject: lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com To: iptel-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: extest@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, iptel-request@lists.bell-labs.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com. Thanks! Passwords for iptel-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- iptel@lists.bell-labs.com nexaew http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/options/iptel/iptel-archive%40lists.ietf.org From consultoriaemp75@yahoo.com.mx Fri Feb 1 13:22:54 2002 Received: from smtp.prodigy.net.mx ([148.235.168.22]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06682 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from frezzer (du-148-233-90-39.prodigy.net.mx [148.233.90.39]) by SMTP.Prodigy.Net.mx (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2001.07.26.11.50.p9) with SMTP id <0GQV007TR9K1YB@SMTP.Prodigy.Net.mx>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:21:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:21:44 -0600 From: "Lic. Alfredo Martinez Zepeda." Subject: UNICO DIA 02 DE FEBRERO, SEMINARIO EL CERRADOR DE VENTAS. To: iptel-archive@ietf.org Reply-to: consultoriaemp7@yahoo.com.mx Message-id: <0GQV007089NWYB@SMTP.Prodigy.Net.mx> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mailer Signature Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT SEMINARIO EL CERRADOR PROFESIONAL DE VENTAS Temario: 1. Los factores claves para lograr un buen control del proceso de ventas. 2. Como incrementar los ingresos de su empresa por medio de un excelente control del cierre de ventas. 3. La importancia de la comunicacion efectiva en el cierre de ventas. 4. Como interesar al cliente en nuestro producto o servicio. 5. Como manejar en forma experta las objeciones del cliente. 6. Los pasos exactos para lograr el cierre de ventas. 7. Como incrementar su porcentaje de cierres de ventas. 8. Profesionalismo en ventas. 9. Los ingredientes claves para triunfar en ventas. 10. Ejercicios practicos en cada uno de los temas expuestos. Los ejercicios estan dirigidos a la aplicacion de los conocimientos aprendidos para lograr resultados de inmediato. Fecha: Sabado 2 de Febrero del 2002 Lugar: Hotel Bristol, Salon Bristol, Plaza Necaxa No. 17 Rio Panuco esq. Rio Sena, Col. Cuauhtemoc, D.F. Duracion: 8 horas, 50% del tiempo se dedica a la realizacion de ejercicios practicos. Horario: Seminario de las 9:00 A.M. a las 18:30 P.M. Dirigido a: Ejecutivos de ventas, vendedores y propietarios de negocios. Inversion: $1,900.00 por participante (mas I.V.A.) Incluye: Material de apoyo Coffee Breaks y comida. Conferencista Lic. Alfredo Martinez Zepeda. CON MAS DE 7 ANOS DE EXPERIENCIA CAPACITANDO A MILES DE VENDEDORES PARA LA INDUSTRIA. RESERVE HOY MISMO TEL: 5543 5961 y 5543 4061 CON LA SRA. LAURA AGUILAR DIRECTORA DE RELACIONES PUBLICAS, CONSULTORIA EMPRESARIAL PD: Conforme a las leyes nacionales como internacionales este e-mail no podrá ser considerado como SPAM si incluye un procedimiento para ser removido de la lista. Si desea ser removido envienos un e-mail a consultoriaemp7@yahoo.com.mx indicandonos a que correo le hemos contactado y en el asunto indique "REMOVER DE LA LISTA" From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 5 15:46:57 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18697 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:46:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g15KYQM01547; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:34:34 -0500 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g15KPoM01499 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:25:50 -0500 From: owner-iptel@lists.bell-labs.com To: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Tue Feb 5 15:24:10 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 82F274439F; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92754439D for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g15KNrc04881 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.176]) by dusty; Tue Feb 5 15:20:18 EST 2002 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17842; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200202052023.PAA17842@ietf.org> Subject: [IPTEL] (no subject) Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:24:10 -0500 To: Cc: RFC Editor , IANA , Internet Architecture Board , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com From: The IESG Subject: Protocol Action: CPL: A Language for User Control of Internet Telephony Services to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:23:39 -0500 Sender: scoya@cnri.reston.va.us The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'CPL: A Language for User Control of Internet Telephony Services' as a Proposed Standard. This document is the product of the IP Telephony Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Allison Mankin and Scott Bradner. Technical Summary The Call Processing Language (CPL) is a language that can be used to describe and control Internet telephony services. It is designed to be implementable on either network servers or user agent servers. It is meant to be simple, extensible, easily edited by graphical clients, and independent of operating system or signaling protocol. It is suitable for running on a server where users may not be allowed to execute arbitrary programs, as it has no variables, loops, or ability to run external programs. It is not tied to any particular signaling architecture or protocol; it is anticipated that it will be used with both SIP and H.323. Implementations of the CPL are expected to take place both in Internet telephony servers and in advanced clients; both can usefully process and direct users' calls. This document primarily addresses the usage in servers. A mechanism will be needed to transport scripts between clients and servers; this document does not describe such a mechanism, but related documents will. Working Group Summary This document has working group consensus and no issues were raised during IETF last-call. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed for the IESG by Scott Bradner. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 5 16:51:19 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20746 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g15Lc4M01908; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:38:04 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g15LbTM01895 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:37:29 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 5 16:31:56 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 0E5E34439F; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4EE4439D for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g15LbKc11653 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail3.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.44.69]) by dusty; Tue Feb 5 16:33:44 EST 2002 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.41]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g15Lbu6Y014829 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:37:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C605088.E18073F4@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com References: <200202052023.PAA17842@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [IPTEL] CPL approved as rfc! Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:37:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At long last, CPL has been approved as an RFC! Great work, everyone. Thanks, Jonathan R. owner-iptel@lists.bell-labs.com wrote: > > To: > Cc: RFC Editor , IANA , > Internet Architecture Board , > iptel@lists.bell-labs.com > From: The IESG > Subject: Protocol Action: CPL: A Language for User Control of Internet > Telephony Services to Proposed Standard > Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:23:39 -0500 > Sender: scoya@cnri.reston.va.us > > The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'CPL: A Language for User > Control of Internet Telephony Services' > as a Proposed Standard. This document is the product of the IP > Telephony Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Allison Mankin > and Scott Bradner. > > > Technical Summary > > The Call Processing Language (CPL) is a language that can be used to > describe and control Internet telephony services. It is designed to be > implementable on either network servers or user agent servers. It is > meant > to be simple, extensible, easily edited by graphical clients, and > independent of operating system or signaling protocol. It is suitable > for > running on a server where users may not be allowed to execute > arbitrary > programs, as it has no variables, loops, or ability to run external > programs. It is not tied to any particular signaling architecture or > protocol; it is anticipated that it will be used with both SIP and > H.323. > > Implementations of the CPL are expected to take place both in Internet > telephony servers and in advanced clients; both can usefully process > and > direct users' calls. This document primarily addresses the usage in > servers. A mechanism will be needed to transport scripts between > clients > and servers; this document does not describe such a mechanism, but > related > documents will. > > Working Group Summary > > This document has working group consensus and no issues were raised > during IETF last-call. > > Protocol Quality > > This document was reviewed for the IESG by Scott Bradner. > > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Feb 20 10:30:05 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03656 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1KFSTM31154; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:28:29 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1FG5YM29717 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:05:34 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Fri Feb 15 10:59:51 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id C0F024439E; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:05:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABB24439D for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:05:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1FG5Lt45152 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ltitlout.lntinfotech.com ([203.199.54.8]) by dusty; Fri Feb 15 11:01:39 EST 2002 Received: from Bangalore.lntinfotech.com ([107.108.204.3]) by ltitlout.lntinfotech.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002021521500762:40758 ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:50:07 +0530 To: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: Rakesh.Khemani@lntinfotech.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BANGALORE/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 02/15/2002 09:33:18 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on LTITLOUT/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 02/15/2002 09:50:08 PM, Serialize by Router on LTITLOUT/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 02/15/2002 09:50:11 PM, Serialize complete at 02/15/2002 09:50:11 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [IPTEL] Some queries on TRIP Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:33:10 +0530 Hello friends, Could someone clarify some of my queries as given below w.r.t RFC 3219. 3.2 Database exchanges In case of internal peers, all routes in the Ext-TRIB and all Adj-TRIB-In are to be dumped when a new peer comes up. The 'all Adj-TRIB-In' here appears to mean the Adj-TRIB-In for internal peers only. Is it correct ? 10.1.4 Sequence Number Considerations When the sequence number is MaxSequenceNum-1 and it needs to be increased, then the TRIB module of the LS must be 'disabled' for a period of TripDisableTime so that all routes originated by this LS with high sequence numbers can be removed. I am not able to interpret the above. Tie-Breaking Is the rule of selecting the 'lowest' ITAD No./TRIP Identifier based on some special consideration? I mean couldn't the 'highest' figure been considered ? Update Message handling If the new route is more specific than an earlier route contained in the Adj-TRIB-In and has identical attributes, then no further action is necessary. Does it mean that both the routes are kept in Adj-TRIB -In ? If yes, what could be the benefits of such an action? Thanks in anticipation, Rakesh. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Feb 20 11:14:45 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05039 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1KGBgM31561; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:11:42 -0500 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1KG5jM31433 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:05:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Wed Feb 20 11:04:02 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 9F7434439F; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:03:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6738E4439D; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from nslocum.cs.bell-labs.com (nslocum.cs.bell-labs.com [135.104.8.38]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1KG3iS70781; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from research.bell-labs.com (ste-pcmh.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.53.76]) by nslocum.cs.bell-labs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA300644356; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C73C90B.76ED8866@research.bell-labs.com> From: Shaun Erickson Reply-To: ste@research.bell-labs.com Organization: Bell Labs (Innovations for Lucent Technologies) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com, ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [IPTEL] Virus checking for list posts. Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:04:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Earlier this month, or late last month, I forget when exactly, the MyParty virus was sent to the list server and then forwarded on out to thousands of people. I was very unhappy that my server had aided in the spread of this vermin. I had been stripping attachements, based on certain extensions, but was not stripping things with the .com extension, which that one came through with. To try and prevent this from happening again, all list mail now goes through a system where it is scanned for virues, by McAfee's anti-virus software, before being sent to the lists. The dat file for the anti-virus software is kept as up to date as possible, as we check for updates to it, once per hour. I still continue to drop attachements based on extension type, as well, with .com now being one of them. I'm sure others will be added over time. I hope this new procedure will prevent my system from passing on viruses to you, in the future. -ste (Bell Labs Listserver Administrator) _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 21 20:49:23 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08968 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:49:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M1cBM08910; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:38:11 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M1beM08897 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:37:40 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Thu Feb 21 20:30:29 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 8D45A4439E; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497B84439D for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M1a6t93847 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.184]) by dusty; Thu Feb 21 20:32:14 EST 2002 Received: from dizzy2 ([64.230.107.168]) by tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20020222013647.CMTF808.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@dizzy2>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:47 -0500 Message-ID: <002801c1bb41$b2cc8220$9772fea9@dizzy2> From: "David Zinman" To: "Kevin Lingle" , , "Dave Walker" Cc: References: <3C4C8DE4.D65BCC4@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [IPTEL] more comments on tripMIB - indexing of app protocol and address families MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:38:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin, Making the app protocol and address families object identifiers solves the problem of adding new app protocols and address families after the MIB has been published. If they are represented by numbers, then each will have to be approved (so there is no duplication) and added to the MIB. If they are object identifiers, they can be defined within a private MIB to ensure no duplication. I agree that this is a cumbersome way of doing it, especially when these appear as an index, but it allows for the most flexibility. DZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Lingle" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: [IPTEL] more comments on tripMIB (per draft-zinman-trip-mib-02.txt) > some months back i offered david zinman comments on the draft trip mib. > (see posting to this list on 8/31/2001 w/ subject containing > draft-ietf-trip-mib-00.txt) > > i stopped short then of completing my review - left off at the > tripRouteTable. > here i'll pick up again from that point using > draft-zinman-trip-mib-02.txt. > > > tripRouteEntry OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX TripRouteEntry > > MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "Information about a route to a called destination." > > INDEX { applIndex, > > tripRouteAppProtocol, > > tripRouteAddressFamily, > > tripRouteAddress, > > tripRoutePeer > > } > > as i've said before, indexing schemes like you have here > are going to be cumbersome and difficult to understand. > > do app protocol and address families textual conventions really > need to be defined as object identifiers? what's wrong with > simple enumerated integers? > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 21 21:59:31 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10676 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:59:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M2sBM09439; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:54:11 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M2reM09425 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:40 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Thu Feb 21 21:47:34 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 071184439E; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24C94439D for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M2rAt97986 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail3.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.44.69]) by dusty; Thu Feb 21 21:49:22 EST 2002 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.72]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1M2rt6Y013795 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C75B290.386DA141@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list iptel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:53:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Things have been very quiet for the iptel group over the past few months. I'd like to summarize where we are, we we are going, and propose a path forward. Where are we? ------------- CPL was approved as an RFC, and TRIP issued as RFC 3219. The TRIP MIB went to IESG, we've gotten some feedback already, and some late comments have come in from group participants. So, all is generally OK there. The big stumbling block for us has been the other remaining item on our charter - delivery of the protocol for "gateway registration". This work has been caught up in a debate about the general approach. We've had three distinct proposals: 1. TRIP-GW http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rs-trip-gw-03.txt 2. SLP http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhao-iptel-gwloc-slp-03.txt 3. Radhikas proposals http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-gw-server-registration-00.txt http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-gw-server-discovery-00.txt http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-intra-itad-fw-00.txt http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-itrp-00.txt (which I ruled out of scope) With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an attempt to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was not sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that direction. So, the result has been no progress. Where do we need to go? ------------------------ I believe that, given the general way this group has worked, we will only have success if we can choose one of them, and then work from there. I do not think that comparison documents, additional requirements work, or debate on the merits of each approach will bear fruit. I have seen such things consume endless time in other working groups. So, we need to pick one, now. A proposal ----------- I've had some private conversations with the various players, and I think I can present a proposal that is acceptable to everyone. Here is the proposal: 1. The group will adopt draft-rs-trip-gw as a working group item in fulfillment of our charter task. The scope is as chartered, focusing on allowing a server to make call routing decisions based on information propagated from a PSTN gateway of some variant. SIP to H.323 and other protocol converters are out of scope. 2. draft-zhao-iptel-gwloc-slp is really solving a different problem, more along the lines of discovery. In an SLP system within an enterprise, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Fortunately, SLP allows for IANA registration of templates, so that this work can actually proceed to facilitate gateway discovery, outside of our charter. However, since the attributes in such a template will be similar to the kinds of things we will be doing in draft-rs-trip-gw, it makes sense to use the iptel list as a discussion forum, and to allow meeting time, if needed, to discuss. THe model is similar to what we did with the SLP template for SIP servers; it was never chartered in the SIP group, but it had discussion on the list and a bit of airtime at meetings, and then the template got registered and was done. So, I am going to ask for a consensus call. Please respond to this post with YEA or NAY, if you agree or disagree with this proposal, respectively. I'd like to make a decision next week some time. If this proposal is accepted ----------------------------- Assuming this proposal is accepted, the above draft can be resubmitted (after IETF 53) as draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00. Our task will then be to focus on bringing it to completion. To do that, we would focus on the open issues, which I suspect are primarily on the attribute set. Discussion can begin immediately, of course, on the existing draft. What about IETF 53? -------------------- I have, in fact, reserved a one hour slot at IETF 53. However, I am not sure that this time is needed. Assuming we move forward with the proposal, I do not think that there has been sufficient discussion of the draft on the list to require any meeting time. If the proposal is not accepted, we could possibly need the meeting to further discuss it. So, for the moment, I will hold on to the slot. However, if the proposal is accepted, and I hear no requests for specific agenda topics at the meeting, I will cancel the slot. There is no shame in doing this. So, if you do feel a pressing need to discuss something at IETF 53, please let me know. I'd then like to wrap up the work rapidly, which is still achievable by the end of March, as specified in our charter. Comments solicited. Thanks, Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 21 22:24:22 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11027 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M3O3M09733; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:24:03 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M3NeM09713 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:23:40 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Thu Feb 21 22:16:31 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 2BA914439E; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:22:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6F84439D for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M3M7t99304 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com ([171.71.163.10]) by dusty; Thu Feb 21 22:18:20 EST 2002 Received: from mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com [171.71.163.32]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g1M3M4t29378; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from cj14 (ssh-sj1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ACC16554; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:22:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Cullen Jennings" To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "list iptel" Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C75B290.386DA141@dynamicsoft.com> Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:23:36 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YEA Lets move forward, Cullen _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 22 05:33:36 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26240 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1MAUPM12106; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:30:25 -0500 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MATjM12084 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:29:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Fri Feb 22 05:29:10 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 316294439E; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:28:54 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F242C4439D for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MASqS24912 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from d06lmsgate-4.uk.ibm.COM ([195.212.29.4]) by dusty; Fri Feb 22 05:25:04 EST 2002 Received: from d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.166.84.148]) by d06lmsgate-4.uk.ibm.COM (1.0.0) with ESMTP id KAA43780; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:15:14 GMT Received: from d18ml004.es.ibm.com (d18ml004.es.ibm.com [9.71.13.44]) by d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO v5.01) with ESMTP id g1MAPQU168044; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:25:27 GMT Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "list iptel" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Ignacio M Sierra Ruiz" X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D18ML004/18/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 22/02/2002 11:31:53 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:43:25 +0100 yea _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 22 08:04:23 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00354 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1MD4AM12943; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:04:10 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MD3eM12930 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:03:40 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Fri Feb 22 07:56:09 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 294D84439E; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:01:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031A84439D for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MD1it20885 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from acmepacket.com ([63.67.143.10]) by dusty; Fri Feb 22 07:57:57 EST 2002 Received: from BobP [63.67.143.2] by acmepacket.com (SMTPD32-7.05) id A1357C68014E; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:01:41 -0500 Message-ID: <003c01c1bba0$4a530200$2300000a@acmepacket.com> From: "Bob Penfield" To: "list iptel" References: <3C75B290.386DA141@dynamicsoft.com> Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:56:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I vote YEA (-:bob _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 22 17:13:36 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28296 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1MM68M15296; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:06:09 -0500 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MM5kM15283 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:05:46 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Fri Feb 22 17:04:21 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4BDC84439E; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:04:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A854439D for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1MM44S75354 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from pine.neustar.com ([209.173.57.70]) by dusty; Fri Feb 22 17:00:17 EST 2002 Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (dmz1.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g1MM3tp04255; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:55 -0600 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:50 -0600 Message-ID: <70565611B164D511957A001083FCDD56018700F7@VA02> From: "Peterson, Jon" To: "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" , list iptel Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:03:48 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:53 PM > To: list iptel > Subject: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > [snip] > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an attempt > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was not > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were batting around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing what I perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is really happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the I-D is ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 22 19:40:54 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02508 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1N0W4M16131; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:32:04 -0500 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1N0VjM16118 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:31:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Fri Feb 22 19:30:32 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 6D0A54439E; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:30:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E304439D for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1N0UGt73709 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:30:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com ([171.71.163.10]) by dusty; Fri Feb 22 19:26:29 EST 2002 Received: from mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com [171.71.163.32]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g1N0UDt06647 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from fluffyw2k (dhcp-128-107-142-47.cisco.com [128.107.142.47]) by mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ACC37818; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:30:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Cullen Jennings" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Subject: [IPTEL] Test: Is this list working? Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:29:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A few people seem to have posted stuff that has not arrived after 12 hours. Just wondering if this will work? _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Sat Feb 23 08:48:30 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19857 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1NDekM19838; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:40:46 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1NDdgM19816 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:39:43 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Sat Feb 23 08:33:06 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 62E5A4439E; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:38:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41BC4439D for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1NDcjS08834 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail3.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.44.69]) by dusty; Sat Feb 23 08:34:54 EST 2002 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.54]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1NDdT6Y015550; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:39:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C779B5E.7C34CDFC@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peterson, Jon" Cc: list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward References: <70565611B164D511957A001083FCDD56018700F7@VA02> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:38:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > attempt > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > not > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > batting > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > what I > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > really > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > I-D is > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be most appreciated. -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Mon Feb 25 09:52:52 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12509 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PEkNM04124; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:23 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1PEjgM04111 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:45:42 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Mon Feb 25 09:38:46 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 8A50E4439E; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:44:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616704439D for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1PEiPS98527 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Mon Feb 25 09:40:35 EST 2002 Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com ([12.20.58.69]) by grimy; Mon Feb 25 09:39:33 EST 2002 Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id g1PEfjZ21458 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C0695050153F5B4; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:39:50 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B22CD@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcG8cFE2IFi6hl6cQbmROnDNFpL1LABmWHlA From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "Peterson, Jon" Cc: "list iptel" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by share.research.bell-labs.com id g1PEjgM04112 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:40:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. This is in addition to the CIC. I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. Radhika R. Roy rrroy@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM To: Peterson, Jon Cc: list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > attempt > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > not > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > batting > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > what I > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > really > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > I-D is > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be most appreciated. -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Mon Feb 25 15:14:30 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28116 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1PK8BM05654; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:08:11 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1PK7iM05641 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:07:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Mon Feb 25 15:01:41 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 1D2814439E; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:07:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D568B4439D for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1PK7Mt21559 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:07:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com ([171.71.163.10]) by dusty; Mon Feb 25 15:03:30 EST 2002 Received: from mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com (mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.14]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g1PK7Gt29338; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-166-102.cisco.com [128.107.166.102]) by mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABV52775; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:06:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C7A993B.A14FA03C@cisco.com> From: "Hussein F. Salama" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg , "Peterson, Jon" , list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward References: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B22CD@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:06:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? Hussein > > This is in addition to the CIC. > > I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. > > Radhika R. Roy > rrroy@att.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM > To: Peterson, Jon > Cc: list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > > attempt > > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > > not > > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > > batting > > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > > what I > > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > > really > > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > > I-D is > > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. > > Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for > is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, > and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. > Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk > groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing > out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be > most appreciated. > > -Jonathan R. > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel -- Hussein F. Salama Cisco Systems Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147 _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 10:35:44 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03751 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QFUkM10984; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:30:46 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QFTkM10962 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:29:46 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 10:22:45 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 6A7DB4439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:28:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8084439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QFSPS97203 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 10:24:36 EST 2002 Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com ([192.128.133.69]) by grimy; Tue Feb 26 10:24:53 EST 2002 Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id g1QFRfn04837 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C0695050159AB94; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:26:06 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2988@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcG+OBMkWljvIUahQzGMTPC/T1zibwAoR/Gw From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" To: "Hussein F. Salama" Cc: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "Peterson, Jon" , "list iptel" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by share.research.bell-labs.com id g1QFTlM10963 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:27:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Inline [RRR] -----Original Message----- From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: "TRIP Identifier: This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 address assigned to that LS. ..." So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). So, it is believed that a GW ID is needed, and the TRIP standard needs to be enhanced to differentiate between the LS ID and the GW ID. Hussein > > This is in addition to the CIC. > > I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. > > Radhika R. Roy > rrroy@att.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM > To: Peterson, Jon > Cc: list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > > attempt > > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > > not > > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > > batting > > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > > what I > > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > > really > > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > > I-D is > > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. > > Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for > is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, > and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. > Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk > groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing > out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be > most appreciated. > > -Jonathan R. > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel -- Hussein F. Salama Cisco Systems Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147 _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 12:22:22 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11360 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QHMCM11678; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:22:12 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QHLjM11665 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:21:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 12:15:11 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id DB3314439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B534439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QHKqS07571 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail3.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.44.69]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 12:17:03 EST 2002 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.110.3.234]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1QHLf6Y017633; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:21:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C7BC3EC.85A36FD2@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" Cc: "Hussein F. Salama" , "Peterson, Jon" , list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward References: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2988@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > Inline [RRR] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. > > Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? > > [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: > > "TRIP Identifier: > This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the > sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its > ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 > address assigned to that LS. ..." > > So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). No. LS is a logical element that participates in TRIP. With TRIP-GW, that element is the gateway, and therefore the gateway is an LS. You are confusing logical roles with physical implementations. -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 12:32:17 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11906 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:32:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QHW3M11785; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:32:03 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QHVlM11771 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:31:47 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 12:24:55 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 642244439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:30:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C954439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QHUZt97634 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 12:26:39 EST 2002 Received: from almso1.proxy.att.com ([192.128.167.69]) by grimy; Tue Feb 26 12:25:17 EST 2002 Received: from attrh1i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.10]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id g1QHS2W27738 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh1i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C62A10C000FAD23; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:27:32 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2AC8@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcG+22LNdVnOj9IzSP6KWiHmYaMmvQADZZUw From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" To: "Hussein F. Salama" , "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "Peterson, Jon" Cc: "list iptel" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by share.research.bell-labs.com id g1QHVlM11773 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:27:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In addition, I have to a little more. In TRIP, the LS <-> LS communications are in INTER-Domain mode. In TRIP-GW, the GW <-> LS communications are in INTRA-Domain mode. So, the TRIP-GW (or TRIP-Lite) spec MUST differentiate the above two modes of communications clearly removing all ambiguities. People will also appreciate if the TRIP-GW spec clearly specifies what needs to be done in the situation where there can be many LSs and GWs in a given ITAD (or in a given domain -> INTRA-Domain). Best regards, Radhika R. Roy rrroy@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:27 AM To: Hussein F. Salama Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Inline [RRR] -----Original Message----- From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: "TRIP Identifier: This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 address assigned to that LS. ..." So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). So, it is believed that a GW ID is needed, and the TRIP standard needs to be enhanced to differentiate between the LS ID and the GW ID. Hussein > > This is in addition to the CIC. > > I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. > > Radhika R. Roy > rrroy@att.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM > To: Peterson, Jon > Cc: list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > > attempt > > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > > not > > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > > batting > > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > > what I > > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > > really > > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > > I-D is > > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. > > Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for > is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, > and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. > Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk > groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing > out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be > most appreciated. > > -Jonathan R. > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel -- Hussein F. Salama Cisco Systems Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147 _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 13:26:19 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14708 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QIQ4M12289; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:26:04 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QIPiM12276 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:25:44 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 13:19:28 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id DFA344439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:25:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B844439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QIP9S13327 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com ([171.69.24.11]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 13:21:19 EST 2002 Received: from mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com (mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.14]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g1QIP5E10879; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-29.cisco.com [10.21.96.29]) by mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABV83010; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:24:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C7BD2C6.66CD8176@cisco.com> From: "Hussein F. Salama" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg , "Peterson, Jon" , list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward References: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2AC8@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:24:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > In addition, I have to a little more. > > In TRIP, the LS <-> LS communications are in INTER-Domain mode. No, two LSs may be in the same ITAD. > > In TRIP-GW, the GW <-> LS communications are in INTRA-Domain mode. This is not what the draft recommends. Check Section 4.9 and Figure 5. Thanks. Hussein > > > So, the TRIP-GW (or TRIP-Lite) spec MUST differentiate the above two modes of communications clearly removing all ambiguities. > > People will also appreciate if the TRIP-GW spec clearly specifies what needs to be done in the situation where there can be many LSs and GWs in a given ITAD (or in a given domain -> INTRA-Domain). > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > rrroy@att.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:27 AM > To: Hussein F. Salama > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > Inline [RRR] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. > > Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? > > [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: > > "TRIP Identifier: > This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the > sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its > ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 > address assigned to that LS. ..." > > So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). So, it is believed that a GW ID is needed, and the TRIP standard needs to be enhanced to differentiate between the LS ID and the GW ID. > > Hussein > > > > > This is in addition to the CIC. > > > > I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. > > > > Radhika R. Roy > > rrroy@att.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM > > To: Peterson, Jon > > Cc: list iptel > > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > > > "Peterson, Jon" wrote: > > > > > > > > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made an > > > attempt > > > > to get around this impasse through requirements work, but there was > > > not > > > > sufficient working group effort expended to bear fruit in that > > > > direction. So, the result has been no progress. > > > > > > > > > > One hates to be a naysayer, but I find myself saying nay nonetheless, if > > > only because I feel that discussion of the trunk-group model we were > > > batting > > > around was fairly lively before we all fell into the Abyss of Bis. > > > > > > In any event, I did take some time to put together an I-D summarizing > > > what I > > > perceived to be the results of that discussion - but if the group is > > > really > > > happy with the current proposals, then I won't be disappointed if the > > > I-D is > > > ignored. I certainly know that we'd like to close this WG. > > > > Jon, please feel free to submit the draft. The decision I am asking for > > is not to take the draft as is, but rather to accept is as a work item, > > and work on it under the assumption of a trip framework. > > Addition/removal of attributes, address families, models for trunk > > groups, and so on, are exactlly the things we need to finish fleshing > > out. I suspect that is the stuff of your draft, and such things would be > > most appreciated. > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > -- > > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > > Chief Scientist First Floor > > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > _______________________________________________ > > IPTEL mailing list > > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > > _______________________________________________ > > IPTEL mailing list > > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > > -- > Hussein F. Salama > Cisco Systems > Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 > Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147 > > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel -- Hussein F. Salama Cisco Systems Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147 _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 14:40:37 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18487 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QJe5M12939; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:40:05 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QJdjM12917 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:45 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 14:33:21 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4E5684439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256A64439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QJd2S20423 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 14:35:11 EST 2002 Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com ([192.128.133.69]) by grimy; Tue Feb 26 14:34:40 EST 2002 Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id g1QJbJn13257 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C069505015B0CBE; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:35:45 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2BE9@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcG+8vgoUghkBoSGRFKFZHXvpxor0wAA2daw From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" To: "Hussein F. Salama" Cc: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , "Peterson, Jon" , "list iptel" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by share.research.bell-labs.com id g1QJdjM12918 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:36:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit inline [RRR] -----Original Message----- From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:24 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > In addition, I have to a little more. > > In TRIP, the LS <-> LS communications are in INTER-Domain mode. No, two LSs may be in the same ITAD. [RRR] Yes. However, the spec is SILENT about the INTRA-Domain LSs communications. (Probably, it has been left for the I-TRIP) I believe that the semantics of the GW-ID have not been addressed. [RRR] Our main focus should the TRIP-GW proposal. In this context, this proposal needs to be enhanced. I wish I would suggest some texts for enhancements, if time permits. > > In TRIP-GW, the GW <-> LS communications are in INTRA-Domain mode. This is not what the draft recommends. Check Section 4.9 and Figure 5. [RRR] Yes, I saw it. Are you saying the same semantics for the GW-ID and LS-ID can be used leaving no room for ambiguities? Even if you allow to do so, the texts need to be rewritten in the TRIP-GW proposal, I believe. [RRR] (However, a little more extra work may be needed, if the spec likes to address the situations where there are many GWs and LSs in a domain. For example, how GWs will choose their respective LSs, etc. [may pre-provisioned in absence of discovery, etc.]) Thanks. Hussein > > > So, the TRIP-GW (or TRIP-Lite) spec MUST differentiate the above two modes of communications clearly removing all ambiguities. > > People will also appreciate if the TRIP-GW spec clearly specifies what needs to be done in the situation where there can be many LSs and GWs in a given ITAD (or in a given domain -> INTRA-Domain). > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > rrroy@att.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:27 AM > To: Hussein F. Salama > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > Inline [RRR] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. > > Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? > > [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: > > "TRIP Identifier: > This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the > sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its > ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 > address assigned to that LS. ..." > > So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). So, it is believed that a GW ID is needed, and the TRIP standard needs to be enhanced to differentiate between the LS ID and the GW ID. > > Hussein > > > > > This is in addition to the CIC. > > > > I think that we can complete the discussion via emails for this. > > > > Radhika R. Roy > > rrroy@att.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:39 AM > > To: Peterson, Jon > > Cc: list iptel > > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 26 14:44:05 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18681 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:44:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QJi3M13003; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:44:03 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QJhkM12989 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:43:46 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Tue Feb 26 14:36:47 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 324634439E; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:42:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F1A4439D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1QJgSt09271 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:42:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Tue Feb 26 14:38:37 EST 2002 Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com ([12.20.58.69]) by grimy; Tue Feb 26 14:38:36 EST 2002 Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id g1QJfJZ14452 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:41:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C069505015B123A; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:39:39 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9017B2BF3@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thread-Topic: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcG+6fDYqWf1NgJgRaek5mOpqLmIQwAEzPIQ From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" Cc: "Hussein F. Salama" , "Peterson, Jon" , "list iptel" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by share.research.bell-labs.com id g1QJhkM12990 Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:40:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Inline [RRR] -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:21 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO Cc: Hussein F. Salama; Peterson, Jon; list iptel Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > Inline [RRR] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:hsalama@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:06 PM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALASO > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Peterson, Jon; list iptel > Subject: Re: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALASO" wrote: > > > By the way, we have also submitted a draft for adding the GW identification (GW ID) in J. Rosenberg, et. al.'s TRIP-GW draft. > > Why isn't the TRIP Identifier of the Open Header sufficient? > > [RRR] The definition of the TRIP identifier is as follows: > > "TRIP Identifier: > This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the TRIP Identifier of the > sender. The TRIP Identifier MUST uniquely identify this LS within its > ITAD. A given LS MAY set the value of its TRIP Identifier to an IPv4 > address assigned to that LS. ..." > > So, it identifies the LS, not the gateway (GW). No. LS is a logical element that participates in TRIP. With TRIP-GW, that element is the gateway, and therefore the gateway is an LS. You are confusing logical roles with physical implementations. [RRR] I would agree with this, if it is clarified in the text. So far, I have not seen this clarification in the spec. (Did I miss it?) -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Feb 27 19:19:02 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25596 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1S06EM20473; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:06:18 -0500 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1S05iM20460 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:05:44 -0500 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Wed Feb 27 18:58:44 EST 2002 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 593744439E; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:04:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023734439D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1S04OS29351 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com ([171.69.24.11]) by dusty; Wed Feb 27 19:00:29 EST 2002 Received: from mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com [171.71.163.32]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g1S049E26895; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from oranlt ([161.44.238.50]) by mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACD22364; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:04:12 -0800 (PST) From: "David R. Oran" To: "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" , "'list iptel'" Subject: RE: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <000601c1bfeb$76f8c840$32ee2ca1@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <3C75B290.386DA141@dynamicsoft.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:04:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YEA. > -----Original Message----- > From: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com > [mailto:iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Rosenberg > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:53 PM > To: list iptel > Subject: [IPTEL] A proposal for moving iptel forward > > > Folks, > > Things have been very quiet for the iptel group over the past > few months. I'd like to summarize where we are, we we are > going, and propose a path forward. > > Where are we? > ------------- > > CPL was approved as an RFC, and TRIP issued as RFC 3219. The > TRIP MIB went to IESG, we've gotten some feedback already, > and some late comments have come in from group participants. > So, all is generally OK there. The big stumbling block for us > has been the other remaining item on our charter - delivery > of the protocol for "gateway registration". This work has > been caught up in a debate about the general approach. We've > had three distinct proposals: > > 1. TRIP-GW > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rs-trip-gw-03.txt > > 2. SLP > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhao-iptel-gwloc-slp-03.txt > > 3. Radhikas proposals > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-gw-serv > er-registration-00.txt > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-gw-serv > er-discovery-00.txt > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-intra-i > tad-fw-00.txt > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roy-iptel-itrp-00.txt > (which I ruled out of scope) > > With advocates in each camp (primarily the authors). We made > an attempt to get around this impasse through requirements > work, but there was not sufficient working group effort > expended to bear fruit in that direction. So, the result has > been no progress. > > > Where do we need to go? > ------------------------ > > I believe that, given the general way this group has worked, > we will only have success if we can choose one of them, and > then work from there. I do not think that comparison > documents, additional requirements work, or debate on the > merits of each approach will bear fruit. I have seen such > things consume endless time in other working groups. So, we > need to pick one, now. > > A proposal > ----------- > > I've had some private conversations with the various players, > and I think I can present a proposal that is acceptable to > everyone. Here is the proposal: > > 1. The group will adopt draft-rs-trip-gw as a working group > item in fulfillment of our charter task. The scope is as > chartered, focusing on allowing a server to make call routing > decisions based on information propagated from a PSTN gateway > of some variant. SIP to H.323 and other protocol converters > are out of scope. > > 2. draft-zhao-iptel-gwloc-slp is really solving a different > problem, more along the lines of discovery. In an SLP system > within an enterprise, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to > do. Fortunately, SLP allows for IANA registration of > templates, so that this work can actually proceed to > facilitate gateway discovery, outside of our charter. > However, since the attributes in such a template will be > similar to the kinds of things we will be doing in > draft-rs-trip-gw, it makes sense to use the iptel list as a > discussion forum, and to allow meeting time, if needed, to discuss. > > THe model is similar to what we did with the SLP template for > SIP servers; it was never chartered in the SIP group, but it > had discussion on the list and a bit of airtime at meetings, > and then the template got registered and was done. > > > So, I am going to ask for a consensus call. Please respond to > this post with YEA or NAY, if you agree or disagree with this > proposal, respectively. I'd like to make a decision next week > some time. > > If this proposal is accepted > ----------------------------- > > Assuming this proposal is accepted, the above draft can be > resubmitted (after IETF 53) as draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00. > Our task will then be to focus on bringing it to completion. > To do that, we would focus on the open issues, which I > suspect are primarily on the attribute set. Discussion can > begin immediately, of course, on the existing draft. > > > > What about IETF 53? > -------------------- > > I have, in fact, reserved a one hour slot at IETF 53. > However, I am not sure that this time is needed. Assuming we > move forward with the proposal, I do not think that there has > been sufficient discussion of the draft on the list to > require any meeting time. If the proposal is not accepted, we > could possibly need the meeting to further discuss it. So, > for the moment, I will hold on to the slot. However, if the > proposal is accepted, and I hear no requests for specific > agenda topics at the meeting, I will cancel the slot. There > is no shame in doing this. > > So, if you do feel a pressing need to discuss something at > IETF 53, please let me know. > > I'd then like to wrap up the work rapidly, which is still > achievable by the end of March, as specified in our charter. > > > Comments solicited. > > Thanks, > Jonathan R. > > > > > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > _______________________________________________ > IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-> labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel