Subject: [SPIRITS] San Diego meeting notes

From: Alec Brusilovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:46:11 -0600

Group,

Please see attached San Diego meeting notes. We have to
submit these notes to the proceedings by the end of the next
week.

Wishing all of you a very good spirited and Happy New Year!
-Alec
49th IETF SPIRITS Working Group Meeting Notes

Reported by Alec Brusilovsky.
Recorded by Kumar Vemuri, to whom both co-chairs express
their deepest appreciation for the excellent job.

SPIRITS WG met in the afternoon of Tuesday, December 12,
2000.
There were 106 registered attendees.

Chairs: Steve Bellovin, Alec Brusilovsky

Agenda

1. Agenda bashing and goals of the session - 5 minutes;
2. SPIRITS progress in ITU-T - Hui-Lan Lu - 5 minutes;
3. Discussion on the additions to the SPIRITS Architecture
Document - 5 minutes;
4. Discussion on the SPIRITS Protocol Requirements - 20
minutes - I. Faynberg;
5. Next step - SPIRITS Protocol - 20 minutes;
6. Wrap-up - 5 minutes.

1. Agenda bashing and goals of the session

A question on PINT related issues.
The chair requested this discussion to be taken to 
the PINT list.
Agenda was accepted without changes.

2. SPIRITS progress in ITU-T - Hui-Lan Lu
ITU IN Architecture and Requirements WG requested the 
most recent SPIRITS information.
RFC 2995, The Spirits Architecture document, IN and PINT
related Requirements for Spirits Protocol were shared 
with the ITU-T. The IN group in the ITU took this
information from the Spirits architecture and included 
this in one of their draft recommendations. 
The drafting session in Geneva resulted in a Spirits 
example configuration in Q.1244. 
More discussions may take place in the next ITU IN WG 
meeting.

3. Discussion on the additions to the SPIRITS Architecture
Document

Alec B. talked about working on the protocol. There was
consensus on the SPIRITS architecture at the last meeting,
now we ought to start work on the protocol requirements.
Alec asked for an open discussion of Spirits related
architectural issues, based on items discussed on the
Spirits mailing list.

Issue: Comments on architectural framework. There's one
interface between the PINT server and the PINT gateway. 
This interface was not addressed in detail. Some people 
suggested that that interface be made Corba based. 
The Spirits proxy in the modified architectural view 
becomes a gateway like entity on the domain interface, 
and that this does not impact the architectural diagram.

Alec took the Hum for keeping existing architecture vs.
redrawing architecture to reflect similarities or 
symmetries with PINT.
The Hum for the former approach was louder. So the WG 
will be going forward with the existing architecture. 
The Architecture Document will be submitted to the IESG 
as a candidate for the Informational RFC.

4. Discussion on the SPIRITS Protocol Requirements 
- I.Faynberg
Igor (de-facto Document Editor) talked about Spirits
requirements. Igor summarized the changes to be made
reflecting recent discussions. Igor suggested that the 
present document will be modified according to Sören's 
proposal to include the words that will specifically 
say that PINT implementation is not a requirement for
a SPIRITS implementation. He also mentioned that there 
was much useful text in Lawrence's and Jim's drafts 
and asked that Sören, Jörgen, Lawrence, and Jim mail 
to him the pieces of their respective documents to be
included in the requirements within the first couple
weeks after the meeting. 
The speaker talked about using IN as a mechanism for
transporting notifications. Some changes were made to 
the mention of CAMEL related issues in the document.
Igor talked about DPs in the call model that would be
"SPIRITS enabled", and about the need to pick the
appropriate CS (CS-2 or CS-3?) for this as the base model.
He then discussed the use of the SIP SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY
mechanisms for SPIRITS.

Issue: How one could use SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY methods 
when a protocol was not already selected.
Answer: the method names as used are merely indicative of
the capabilities supported, not that we are talking about
protocol specifics at this time.
Regarding persistent interactions, setting dynamic triggers
etc., one may have to also use PINT building blocks to
support SPIRITS end-to-end call flows. There is a possible
problem in recursion: Changes in PINT impact SPIRITS and
vice versa. We need PINT-related requirements in SPIRITS 
and vice-versa.

Issue: It should be possible to implement SPIRITS without
implementing PINT.
Answer: We're not saying it is absolutely necessary, but we
will also not discourage the use of PINT. Some requirements
will continue to address the issue of what happens in
SPIRITS, when we use PINT.
Alec B.: During the previous SPIRITS WG meeting in
Pittsburgh we agreed that it is not necessary to implement
PINT in order to implement SPIRITS.

Issue: JAIN/PARLAY and 3GPP APIs should interact easily with
SPIRITS. Maybe we should look to these APIs while building a
requirement set for SPIRITS.
Chair: Since IETF does not have formal relationships with
JAIN and PARLAY, this may not be possible in all cases.

Both chairs asked for a Consensus Hum: Should we move on
this (Requirements) document - is it ready to progress? Yes
(based on the Hum). The Requirements Document will be
shortly posted for a WG Last Call on the mailing list.

5. Next step - SPIRITS Protocol
The Architecture and the Protocol Requirements work is
pretty much done. We are coming closer and closer to the
actual SPIRITS Protocol work.
Chairs asked for the Protocol Proposals I-Ds to be submitted 
and for the volunteers for the Protocol Team to identify 
themselves.