Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:43:34 -0400

At 5/29/2003:02:08 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:

Hi Igor,

Overall, your response is one of the best
(most useful) pieces of generic guidance
I've read on any IETF list in recent memory.

>"Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote:
>>...
>> Regarding the usuability of the gateway, I am now convinced that
>> unlike PINT, where its usability was limited, in SPIRITS it has
>> a useful place.  Initially, I viewed the gateway as merely a
>> proxy, but on talking to others, it seems that there is a useful
>> role for the gateway in SPIRITS.
>>...
>
>No, no, no! SPIRITS and PINT are the same thing, or more precisely, they are
>mirror images of each other. Besides, no SPIRITS service (except maybe ICW) that
>can really be implemented without what constitues a PINT service, nor could PINT
>conference calling be implemented without SPIRITS.
>
>The division between PINT and SPIRITS was division of work between two WGs. 

Right...that kind of thing happens a lot,
by design, due to IETF organizational style.
It is very important for those IETF members
with knowledge of the relevant history and
architecture in each case (which cannot and
should not be every IETF member!) to keep
such aspects clear to the relevant WGs.

>If any solution violates the architectural principles then I would be inclined
>to say that the solution is wrong, and we must find the one that violates
>nothing.

Yes, that should always be the preferred
modus operandi.

>(Because the alternative would be to restart the architectural work
>from the beginning, which I think is unwarranted.)

I agree completely in this case...but note
that we must always be open to the possibility
that some changes in the external environment
will warrant changes in the IETF's architectural
work (whether established or in progress).

[Apologies to those who feel my comments
above might be more appropriate for the
"problem-statement" WG...but I'm more
interested in concrete examples of the
principles, as is the case here.]

Cheers,

BobN

_______________________________________________
SPIRITS mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:08:12 +0100

At 2:08 pm -0400 29/5/03, Igor Faynberg wrote:
>nothing. (Because the alternative would be to restart the architectural work
>This is not to say that a proxy may not be outside of the PSTN. Of 
>course it may
>(and has to)! But it should not have a function of the SPIRITS gateway then.
>
>Igor

Hi Folks,
   At the risk of this being a "Me too" post, Me too.
The Gateway will be owned by the (PSTN) Operator, at least in real life.

The Gateways in PINT and SPIRITS have defined roles, and as the esteemed
member from Holmdel points out, they always were and are mirrors of one
another; both bubbles trapped in the surface.

If someone wants or needs to add a further gatewaying function to deal with
different protocol architectures on either side of the border, that's fine.
It just isn't a PINT/SPIRITS gateway function, at least to someone as old
as me who can (just) remember Jim Buller's architecture diagrams. Perhaps
one might be able to provide the same service using other architectures,
but those ARE other architectures. One should look back through the early
meeting presentations, in particular at the pictures, from time to time.
IMHO they are worth a thousand words.

If only other WGs remembered where they came from before adding Byzantine
complexities, the world would be a better place - just 'cos others do,
we shouldn't. I LIKE simple pictures, as I am a bear of little brain; the
PINT/SPIRITS architecture is clear from the diagrams produced, and adding
other functions merely reflects a different architecture.

all the best,
  Lawrence
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:[email-masked]>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.