Subject: FW: [PEPPERMINT] potenntial charter for PEPPERMINT

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:30:50 +0100

Comments are welcome. 

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PEPPERMINT] potenntial charter for PEPPERMINT

Folks ..we had a successful BOF in Vancouver in order to progress the
work towards a full charter by the IETF it is necessary to reach
consensus on a charter.

I have a proposal for a charter here below. I welcome comments public
private etc.

PROPOSED CHARTER FOR PEPPERMINT

The IETF has been working on various aspects of Multi-Media
Interconnection among administrative domains. 

ENUM is specifically chartered to develop protocols that involve the
translation of E.164 numbers to URI's. 
 
SPEERMINT has been chartered to develop best current practices among
real-time application service providers and how such services
interconnect across administrative boundaries.

These forms of interconnection will require various forms of data to be
exchanged among administrative domains outside the normal scope of
establishing various SIP sessions. 

The IETF has, in the past done, significant work on data exchanges among
various network elements. PROVREG and NETCFG being the most prominent
recent examples.

Data exchanges to facilitate Multi-Media Interconnection are typically
between various Client User Agents and Registries containing mappings of
phone numbers to URI's, policies surrounding admission to points of
network interconnection and various types of trunking data.  In addition
there is a specific need for redistribution of Registry data to various
types of network databases.  

The proposed PEPPERMINT working group will build upon the knowledge and
expertise of the PROVREG, ENUM and SPEERMINT working groups. The goal of
the WG is to find a provisioning solution for interconnection to be
ultimately used by SPEERMINT. The working group may also reuse elements
of RFC 4114 if possible.

The final work product(s) from this working group will be based upon
XML.
   
Additionally, bias will be given to using, HTTP/REST, HTTP/XML-RPC, or
HTTP/SOAP.

The working group will draw upon expert advice and ongoing consultation
from the ENUM, SPEERMINT and PROVREG working groups.

PROPOSED GOALS AND MILESTONES

Requirements for Interconnection data exchanges.       July 08 

Provisioning of Interconnection data registries.       Sep 08

Provisioning of Interconnection data caches.           Dec 08 

Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:28:44 -0500

By "NETCFG", does Richard mean NETCONF?

I would prefer to see the line removed that states that "bias will be  
given" to particular solutions.  I think it is okay to charter a  
group with restrictions on the solution space, such as "will be based  
on XML" if there is consensus to do so, but I'm not sure what it  
would mean to charter a group and require that they be "biased"  
towards certain solutions.  If there isn't consensus that the  
solution must be based on one of the technologies listed, I think  
that line should be removed and the choice of technology should be a  
group consensus decision.

Margaret

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:12:06 -0500

Hi,

A Google search shows NETCFG to be an open-source GUI-based
application for configuring networks. I would be very concerned if the
charter calls for a solution "biased" toward a vendor-specific
offering, even if the vendor uses open-source and the MIT license,
since we are supposed to develop vendor-neutral standards, and biased
!= neutral.

If the intention was to reference NETCONF, then I have a concern that
the expressed bias is to favor a non-mandatory-to-implement
"transport" for NETCONF. I agree that the line expressing a bias for
certain solutions should be removed.

I would not object to a line expressing a constraint for solutions
that leverage existing IETF standards for certain aspects, such as
security. But I'm not sure I know what is to be delivered well enough
to know how existing standards could be leveraged.

Overall, I find the charter wording to be too ambiguous to adequately
describe the scope of the work to be done. "find a provisioning
solution for interconnection" does not seem sufficiently focused to
identify the expected deliverables. Is this WG chartered to produce a
protocol, some data models, functionality to manage caches? I'm just
not really sure what is being proposed as deliverables, and would be
hard pressed to know when the WG drifted off-topic or completed their
work.

I think the charter wording and scope needs to be tightened
significantly to make this engineering-ready.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:29 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] [PEPPERMINT] potenntial charter for
PEPPERMINT

> > These forms of interconnection will require various forms of data

> > to be
> > The IETF has, in the past done, significant work on data exchanges

> > among
> > The proposed PEPPERMINT working group will build upon the 
> knowledge  
> > and
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
>