Richard Shockey | 7 Dec 20:41 2006
Picon

Interest in SPEERMINT provisioning issues.


There was some talk in San Diego of interest in peeling off the provisioning
issues surrounding SPEERMINT information registries into a separate work
item.

I'd like to get a poll of the list to see again how many people are
interested in the work and what might be the proper way to expedite this.

We're certainly not ready to provision policy yet but its clear that some
form of SPEERMINT provisioning requirements document is in order.

As I mentioned in the meeting there has been some preliminary work in the
area from the ENUM WG however it is based on EPP and as I mentioned most of
the OSS systems now deployed in carrier networks have generally been based
on SOAP/XML.

        RFC 4114

        Title:      E.164 Number Mapping for the Extensible
                    Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
        Author(s):  S. Hollenbeck
        Status:     Standards Track
        Date:       June 2005
        Mailbox:    shollenbeck@...
        Pages:      17
        Characters: 31490
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-enum-epp-e164-08.txt

(Continue reading)

Andrew Newton | 7 Dec 21:21 2006
Picon

Re: Interest in SPEERMINT provisioning issues.

Richard,

I think you are starting this off on the wrong foot, that is with a  
technology battle.  I've personally reviewed the specs for many of  
the peering points and only one used SOAP.  We shouldn't start off  
with a SOAP vs EPP vs REST vs ASN.1 battle.

As I stated at the mic when I brought up this idea, the design team  
should focus on the functional requirements for a provisioning  
interface.  It may turn out that EPP works just fine and that people  
hoisting their flavor of SOAP are just trying to drive a wedge in the  
marketplace.  If it turns out that EPP isn't right, then we can let  
the powers that be worry about who gets to specify the new protocol,  
etc...

To answer part of your question, yes I am interested in finding out  
what functions a provisioning interface needs to have.

-andy

On Dec 7, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

>
> There was some talk in San Diego of interest in peeling off the  
> provisioning
> issues surrounding SPEERMINT information registries into a separate  
> work
> item.
>
> I'd like to get a poll of the list to see again how many people are
(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 8 Dec 03:18 2006
Picon

RE: Interest in SPEERMINT provisioning issues.


OK ... I'm not going to be a protocol bigot here but I do think we are in
agreement that provisioning is a critical element to any discussion of
federations and peering.

Irrespective of the natural TN 2 URI ENUM mappings to points of
interconnection there is the expression of policies etc that will have to be
documented.

My only concern is that discussions of this class of topic not be taken
without the input of the poor companies that actually have to do this kind
of work for service providers.

We certainly know who some of them are... the issue how do we create a
proper forum that takes into account the obvious need with the reality of
implementation strategies.

Is the work appropriate for SPEERMINT aka is it within charter or is some
separate WG necessary.

OSS provisioning issues are a difficult beasts that have to be integrated
into larger Operational Support environments. That is my point.

I'm just asking questions here. This is IMHO a issue we need to have some
consensus on before Prague so lets start asking the right questions.

David to your point clearly there needs to be a Requirements document that
outlines what is required etc so some preliminary ID on the subject are
certainly in order.

(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 19 Dec 16:37 2006
Picon

FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon


Andrew Newton and I will be proposing a BOF on SPEERMINT Provisioning issues
for IETF 68 in Prague.

If anyone has topic or is considering producing drafts related to
provisioning issues please let Andy or I know.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF Chair [mailto:chair@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:39 AM
> To: IETF Announcement list
> Subject: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> As for the previous IETF, we're asking for preliminary BOF proposals to be
> sent to the appropriate Area Director a little earlier, by January 15.
> Even sooner would be better!
> 
> Full list of dates:
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/68-cutoff_dates.html
> 
> BOF wiki:
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki
> 
> Hints:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-successful-bof
> 
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
(Continue reading)

David Schwartz | 19 Dec 17:26 2006

RE: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon

I am 85% finished on an a draft describing requirements we have
accumulated at XConnect. Hope to have this out by the end of the year.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:38 PM
To: 'Andrew Newton'; 'Livingood, Jason'; 'David Meyer';
speermint@...
Cc: 'RAI ADs'
Subject: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon

Andrew Newton and I will be proposing a BOF on SPEERMINT Provisioning
issues
for IETF 68 in Prague.

If anyone has topic or is considering producing drafts related to
provisioning issues please let Andy or I know.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF Chair [mailto:chair@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:39 AM
> To: IETF Announcement list
> Subject: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> As for the previous IETF, we're asking for preliminary BOF proposals
to be
> sent to the appropriate Area Director a little earlier, by January 15.
> Even sooner would be better!
(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 19 Dec 21:13 2006
Picon

RE: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon


BTW you can also put on catchy BOF name thinking caps on ..feel free.

My current favorite is Peppermint.

Provisioning Extenstions in Peering Registries for Multimedia
INTerconnection.

Has that nice IETF ring to it ..dont you think?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schwartz [mailto:David.Schwartz@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:26 AM
> To: richard@...; Andrew Newton; Livingood, Jason; David Meyer;
> speermint@...
> Cc: RAI ADs
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> I am 85% finished on an a draft describing requirements we have
> accumulated at XConnect. Hope to have this out by the end of the year.
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:38 PM
> To: 'Andrew Newton'; 'Livingood, Jason'; 'David Meyer';
> speermint@...
> Cc: 'RAI ADs'
> Subject: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
(Continue reading)

Uzelac, Adam | 19 Dec 21:18 2006

RE: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon

Not only an IETF ring, but also a holiday ring!!!  Candy canes and all.
;)

Happy Holidays one and all, I hope this email finds you well.

-AU 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: 'David Schwartz'; 'Andrew Newton'; 'Livingood, Jason'; 
> 'David Meyer'; speermint@...
> Cc: 'RAI ADs'
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you can also put on catchy BOF name thinking caps on ..feel free.
> 
> My current favorite is Peppermint.
> 
> Provisioning Extenstions in Peering Registries for Multimedia 
> INTerconnection.
> 
> Has that nice IETF ring to it ..dont you think?
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Schwartz [mailto:David.Schwartz@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:26 AM
(Continue reading)

David Meyer | 19 Dec 22:28 2006
Picon

Re: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 03:18:56PM -0500, Uzelac, Adam wrote:
> Not only an IETF ring, but also a holiday ring!!!  Candy canes and all.
> ;)
> 
> Happy Holidays one and all, I hope this email finds you well.

	Likewise. Safe and happy holidays to all of you and your
	families.

	--dmm

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint@...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
Michael Hammer (mhammer | 19 Dec 23:36 2006
Picon

RE: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon

That is a good one.

Happy Holidays all.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: 'David Schwartz'; 'Andrew Newton'; 'Livingood, Jason'; 
> 'David Meyer'; speermint@...
> Cc: 'RAI ADs'
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you can also put on catchy BOF name thinking caps on ..feel free.
> 
> My current favorite is Peppermint.
> 
> Provisioning Extenstions in Peering Registries for Multimedia 
> INTerconnection.
> 
> Has that nice IETF ring to it ..dont you think?
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Schwartz [mailto:David.Schwartz@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:26 AM
> > To: richard@...; Andrew Newton; Livingood, Jason; 
(Continue reading)

Richard Shockey | 20 Dec 00:06 2006
Picon

RE: FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon


Oh geez .. that's right and its even politically correct <gag>

Ho Ho and all that ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uzelac, Adam [mailto:Adam.Uzelac@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:19 PM
> To: richard@...; David Schwartz; Andrew Newton; Livingood, Jason;
> David Meyer; speermint@...
> Cc: RAI ADs
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> 
> Not only an IETF ring, but also a holiday ring!!!  Candy canes and all.
> ;)
> 
> Happy Holidays one and all, I hope this email finds you well.
> 
> -AU
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:13 PM
> > To: 'David Schwartz'; 'Andrew Newton'; 'Livingood, Jason';
> > 'David Meyer'; speermint@...
> > Cc: 'RAI ADs'
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon
> >
> >
> >
(Continue reading)


Gmane